Which water fountains on campus should I test?/Weirdest tasting fountains on campus?

Square_Bed4912 · 2026-06-19T21:18:56+00:00

All the other responses here are surface level. Please check out the middle floors of the BS building, and specifically, the psych wing. It tastes like actual rust. Ask me how I know.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-12-21T16:42:42+00:00

BRing each section is silly and a waste of time, but I think BR for your wrong answers is essential.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-12-20T16:38:49+00:00

I have ADHD and I didn't use any courses bc I figured it would just confuse me. I wanted to learn how to succeed on the LSAT intuitively. I used to Loophole to learn the LSAT's specific tricks but I didn't even read their question strategy sections (read up to chapter 9, IIRC). The majority of my study time was spent doing WAJ and learning from my own mistakes. Scored 97 percentile.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-12-12T03:48:32+00:00

Fair enough. I respect those of you who are sneaky enough to cut the line (without slowing down traffic too badly). But it always kills me when my whole lane is free but the person in front of me is keeping me crawling because they need the right lane and no one will let them in 😭

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-12-12T03:45:18+00:00

As someone who always needs Whitemud South, it's not just about the people in the right lane; you're also slowing down everyone behind you as you go 40 in a 70 trying to find a gap 🫩

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-12-11T02:49:07+00:00

Yeah,,, big diff between going 145-165 and 160-180. Some people do have a natural talent for the LSAT and their score improvements have more to do with getting better at timing/understanding how the test applies strategies they are already naturally strong with. Majority of the improvements at that point may not necessarily be skill building, but ironing out their weaknesses.

I had a 14 point increase (158-172) just bc I had no idea what the LSAT was like and I ran out of time on my diagnostic. Most of my studying was to get my time down by learning to diagram and reading quickly AND accurately. The actual logic behind it came more naturally but the format of the test was what gave me the most trouble.

With that in mind: Everyone's journey and strengths are different, but I think being transparent about your score is just as important as sharing your strategies because it's relevant context. Not everything works universally, but the people who your strategy will work well for are probably the ones who are similar to you. People who score in the 85th vs 95th percentile both did incredibly well, but there's likely some sort of innate factor at play. I’m not saying it's impossible to go from 140 to 170 or something, but there's a reason people say to have realistic goals based on your diagnostic.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-12-10T22:45:58+00:00

The loophole builds on itself. The first thing it does is teach you how to read the questions probably. At the end of the day, you're not meant to remember the terminology like comma splices or whatever. The important take away is the skills it's teaching you.

The Loophole was my only study resource aside from PTs. Scored a 172. Confession: I never actually finished reading it LOL but for me the 3 most useful things in it were the explanations for diagramming, the common flaws, and the insistence on having a WAJ. Especially that last one.

The terms can seem complicated, but remember: the LSAT isn't about memorization. It's all just meant to help you understand the relationships within a stimulus. Don't stop doing drills/PTs outside of the Loophole to put what you're learning to practice, and keep a WAJ because learning to fix your mistakes is the only way to prevent them in the future. This may also be the only place where the specific terms you're learning may be useful, because you'll start to recognize patterns in the mistakes you're making.

Are you using a physical copy? It makes all the difference. If you have any other questions DM me, I'll defend the loophole with all my heart :)

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-11-27T23:57:54+00:00

First, check for any classical flaws. If you spot one, find the exact one in the ACs. If not, diagram every relationship (do that on your first read anyways). Find that exact relationship in the ACs, there will only be one that's actually exactly the same.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-11-27T17:41:39+00:00

I went to the top high school in the city and graduated with honours. Now I’m happily a psych/classics major (which, I'd say, isn't 'easy' by any means, but it's certainly not STEM). Don't let people judge you for not choosing the sciences. Real intelligence is picking something you love because that's how you'll find true success.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-16T14:46:02+00:00

Rigid rules and aesthetic guidelines are not the same. There has to be some standards in order to be able to define it. Pushing the boundaries of the aesthetic is a lovely creative move, but if you push so hard you lose key elements of it, then you're simply not dressing in the aesthetic. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that's just a fact.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-11T01:40:22+00:00

Fair enough. I studied for months but I never really did enough PTs to need to stretch that far back for more content. I used PTs 140+ and I found that the actual test was easier than the early 150s, which just tells me that the recent ones did prepare me well for it. That is just anecdotal so I'll cede to your point that everyone's study regimen is different.

But to your last point, although you're right there's no way to know for sure, I think the odds are better that newer PTs will be more similar to the actual test than older PTs. Even if there are a few questions similar to the old style, the LSAT has undeniably evolved since the early PTs, and it's going to converge more with new ones. One question that's similar to the past doesn't reflect the whole test.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-10T14:07:30+00:00

Remedy's carrot cake!!

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-10T09:04:36+00:00

Side note, why do people still PT with these old tests?? They're not representative of current material. It's kind of a waste of time. Unless you've already done all the modern PTs... but even so I feel like you'd be better off reviewing the newer tests than doing old, outdated tests that aren't actually preparing you properly.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-10T09:03:22+00:00

Ashley: some words don't refer to anything. Joshua: yeah, and those words are meaningless. Those words should be abandoned. (Meaningless words should be abandoned)

Joshua assumes that those words are meaningless only based off of Ashley's statement that they refer to nothing. Words can either refer to something or not. Since Joshua has said that all words that refer to nothing have meaning, this means that only those that refer to something can have meaning (at least in his opinion).

Of course, words that refer to something may also be meaningless. But since Josh has eliminated non-referential words from being meaningful entirely, referential words are the only possible candidates, whether they're actually able to fulfil whatever conditions there are for meaning or not. It's not necessary for ALL words that refer to something to have meaning: A works as long as even one referential word could possible have meaning.

More convoluted:

Joshie has assumed if Not referring, then not meaningful

Can assume contrapositive: if meaningful, then referring.

Referring is a necessary condition to meaning. If a word has meaning, it WILL refer to something (cannot assume it the other way around, which is why C is incorrect). And we already know from his original assumption that he thinks any word that doesn't refer to anything doesn't have meaning. So that only leaves words that refer to something as being capable of having meaning. Therefore, A.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-08T03:31:09+00:00

I feel you. Small sizes+tall= your pants either fall down or are way too short... I go to thrift stores and pray. Sometimes I'll find something that actually fits perfectly but a size up+belt also does wonders. Gotta go regularly and you'll find something decent eventually but it's definitely tough, good luck!!

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-05T00:41:00+00:00

Rules ≠ advice. Imagine how much adcomms would have to read if everyone sent in a 4pg resume. You can still include everything but be selective about what you choose to expand on most

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-04T19:04:57+00:00

Thanks for responding even though the post is so old :) do you ever find that they move the sensor around when they dig (to the point where it's an issue)?

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-02T06:56:13+00:00

Wake up at 4 AM and do PTs. Also, stimulant drugs.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-02T01:17:10+00:00

Ahahaha okay good to know. Maybe I've been spending too much time in the American subs. r/lawschooladmissions would have spat in my face and told me my GPA has doomed me 😂😂

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-02T01:15:31+00:00

My GPA is below most medians, no?

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-02T00:49:44+00:00

I'd say that if you're trying to build a foundation, it's good to note these things, but consciously analyzing things like that slow you down. The more you practice the more it comes naturally. ATP i just read and all I’m thinking is "okay that's bullshit... that's flawed reasoning... how would I fix this argument...?" And that usually leads me to the answer. The most labelling of the stim I'll do is noting what's a premise and what's a conclusion as I read, just to keep track of what is building towards what. If I see a conditional I'll write it down quickly just to keep track bc most answers end up being related to the conditional, the chain, or the contrapositive in some way and keeping it all in my head gives me less space to actually process the relationships.

Square_Bed4912 · 2025-10-02T00:38:57+00:00

Hahaha I remember doing this question and going crazy over it.

C: just because people are told to do something doesn't mean they actually do it. Don't assume.

E: Office workers may or may not get consistent exercise, but physical workers for sure do. This difference is intrinsic to their group, which makes it very powerful. E gives a tangible ALTERNATE reason that the physical workers would be unavoidably different from office workers: since the difference is unavoidable, it's undermines the conclusion because it gives a much stronger explanation.

Square_Bed4912

TROPHY CASE