So I- I- I had a student call me last week, absolutely, uh,
in a panic because they- they were trying to find an explanation for PrepTest 141,
Section 2, Question 14.
They searched everywhere.
Google, Reddit, the forums...
absolutely nothing.
It was like this question, uh, simply did not exist in the history of the world.
Oh, I- I know that exact feeling.
It's- it's incredibly isolating.
You- you feel like you're the only person on the planet struggling with this
specific logical flaw because the internet is just a blank wall.
But, wait, PT 141?
That's, what, one of the new ones on LawHub since they changed the format in August
2024?
Exactly.
The, uh, the triple-digit tests.
From 101 to 159.
But here is the thing...
and this is the- the secret LSAC isn't exactly shouting from the rooftops.
PrepTest 141 is a ghost.
It- it doesn't actually exist as a unique exam.
It's a Frankenstein's monster made of older parts.
That specific question?
It's actually from the old PrepTest 73, which was administered back in September
2014.
They just re-labeled it.
Wait, so LSAC retired the old double-digit tests, PTs 1 through 94,
in August, and- and then they just...
what?
Re-shuffled the deck, slapped a 2024 or 2025 label on it, and called it a day?
That's wild.
It's like buying a brand new car only to find out the engine is from a 2014 sedan.
That is exactly what it is.
When they, uh, they removed the Analytical Reasoning section...
the Logic Games...
they had to reformulate how they present practice material.
So they took the old exams, stripped out the games, added a second Logical Reasoning
section from a different old test, and- and gave it a brand-new triple-digit number.
But because the entire LSAT prep community has spend twenty-five years writing deep,
peer-reviewed explanations under the *old* numbering system...
the old double-digits...
students are suddenly cut off from all that wisdom.
Right, because if you're typing "PT 141" into Google, you're getting zero hits.
But if you knew it was actually PT 73, you'd get pages and pages of forum threads,
breakdowns, LSAT Hacks, PowerScore, everything.
How is a student supposed to bridge that gap?
Is there a decoder ring?
There is.
LSAC has these, uh, they're called Conversion Tables, tucked away on their site.
It's a spreadsheet that maps every single section of the new triple-digit tests back
to its original source.
If you're using LawHub, you need to keep that spreadsheet open in another tab.
It's your...
well, it's your decoder ring.
If you get stuck on PT 152, you look it up, realize it's actually,
say, PrepTest 82, and suddenly you have a decade of expert explanations at your
fingertips.
I wish I had known that when I started.
When I was self-studying, I hit a massive wall because I was practicing on LawHub,
using the new numbers, and just, um, feeling so dumb because I couldn't find help.
Once I figured out that PT 115 was just old PT...
whatever it was...
it changed everything.
I wasn't studying in a vacuum anymore.
I was tapping into decades of collective test-taker struggle.
It's a- it's a massive, unnecessary hurdle for self-studiers.
LSAC wanted a clean slate for the new era, but they created a,
uh, a structural blind spot.
Don't let the triple digits fool you.
You are still dealing with the same classic LSAT logic from ten,
fifteen years ago.
You just need the right map to find the treasure.
So, speaking of the new format...
without the Logic Games, we now have three scored sections...
two Logical Reasoning, one Reading Comp...
plus that lovely, uh, unscored experimental section.
And statistically, since there's only one RC and two LRs scored,
that experimental section is...
what, way more likely to be an LR?
Yes.
Mathematically, there is a- a roughly 66% chance that your experimental section will
be Logical Reasoning.
Which means, on test day, you are highly likely to face a grueling psychological
gauntlet of *three* full LR sections.
That is seventy-eight questions of dense, conditional logic,
flaws, and assumptions.
That is a recipe for absolute brain fry.
I mean, by the time you get to that third LR section, your eyes are crossing.
And I know so many students who try to...
like, they try to "game" the system.
They get to the second LR and think, "Oh, this section feels really weirdly worded,
or maybe it's too easy, this must be the experimental one,"
and they- they kind of check out mentally.
They ease up on the gas.
Which is a, uh, a catastrophic mistake.
It is a statistically terrible gamble.
LSAC is incredibly sophisticated.
They- they don't just put the experimental section at the end.
They mix the section order.
They mix the difficulty.
They will put a brutal, experimental LR section first, or they'll put a incredibly
standard-feeling one third.
If you guess wrong and slack off, you've just tanked your score on a section that
actually counted.
Right, because if you're trying to play detective during the exam,
you're using up valuable cognitive bandwidth.
You're analyzing the test's structure instead of analyzing the argument's logical
gap.
It's a- it's a massive energy leak.
Exactly.
In a deposition, if you're- if you're a litigator, you don't- you don't decide
midway through that a certain line of questioning doesn't matter and start coasting.
You treat every single question with the exact same methodical aggression.
You have to bring that exact same depositional mindset to the LSAT.
Every section is scored.
Period.
Until you walk out of that room, you do not guess.
You do not slack.
So how do you prepare for that?
Because three LR sections is...
I mean, the mental stamina required for that is intense.
How do you train for that level of fatigue without just burning out during prep?
You have to, uh, what I call "over-stamina" train.
When you do your practice tests, you don't just do the three scored sections.
You must build in that fourth section every single time, and you should deliberately
structure it to simulate the worst-case scenario.
I have my students do "Option A" where the experimental LR is section one...
so you are already tired before you even hit the scored material...
or "Option B" where it is section three, right when the fatigue is hitting its peak.
You train for the marathon so that the actual test-day sprint feels controlled.
That sounds brutal, but, honestly, it makes so much sense.
It's like training with a weighted vest.
If you can handle three LRs with the experimental section placed right where your
brain wants to quit, then test day isn't going to surprise you.
You've already survived the worst version of it.
Exactly.
You- you take the mystery out of it.
When you sit down and see three LR sections, you don't panic.
You just think, "Ah, yes.
Option B.
I've done this ten times already."
You stop trying to outsmart the clock, and you just execute the method.
Yeah.
Stop playing detective with the test format and start being a detective with the
arguments.
Alright, I think that's a perfect place to wrap.
Grab those conversion tables, build that stamina, and stop guessing which sections
count.
Thanks, Adrian.
Anytime, Nora.
Talk soon.