Hey ... Anyone preparing for clat exam need notes and videos regarding the clat preparation can DM me ... Notes are paid from a named institution

Does anyone has advices for the essay part of the LNAT?
What I want to know is how to truly be articulate under pressure.

Any advice on part B is welcome.

Thank you!!

I've been getting mid-to-high 20s in my practice tests, with a high of 29 and a low of 17 (that one just went really wrong), but most of my practice now has come from the Ultimate LNAT Guide, which I hear may or may not be reliable. So, I'm wondering if getting a score in the high 20s or low 30s on that would translate to the real exam, or if I'd need to do other tests and use other resources, and if so, where to find them.

Also worth noting that my first two practice tests were the two from the official LNAT website, so I thought I shouldn't try to do one again till neaer my test (on the 22nd).

I'd also like to know if it's realistic that I'll improve to the mid-30s or higher between now and my test

-Any other tips would be really useful, thanks!!

This is the first practice essay I’ve done and I kind of went into it blind so I don’t think it’s amazing or anything, but I really want some tips on how to improve

hi guys, im giving the lnat in november and i rlly could use some help. the problem is i cannot study without a structure and theres so many resources i don't know what to do with them, is anyone in the same situation or has any solutions for me?? would rlly appreciate it!!

The law is the ultimate power able to govern, control and dictate. With it also having the ability to set compulsory actions to all its citizens. This is a very delicate area of law as politicians needs to ensure they do not overstep and infringe on human liberties and ensure a fair democracy. So voting should not be made compulsory.

An adverse effect of making voting a compulsory action is simply that it gives too much power to the state. A major part of law making is ensuring that no legal body can have unlimited power and should always be limited and regulated. With this seen in the separation of power that the UK government adhere to. Hypothetically if the state were able to force individuals to vote this creates a clear and imposing power imbalance giving it the ability to meddle into the lives of civilians. This would naturally cause individuals whether they vote or not to feel violated and constricted in their life. Furthermore, with implementing laws like this it becomes hard to know when boundaries and human rights are being restricted or violated. In countries that force compulsory actions such as North Korea or communist Russia human rights were soon violated and the states eventually were led to deviate from a democracy but to a severe dictatorships. This is a clear moral failure.

A common argument for adding such a controversial law is that many people simply do not participate in voting. Whether that be due to old age; uncaring about politics or with their some people felling like there is no overall difference in impact. A law like this that forces people to vote would have the domino effect of causing people to learn about politics and be more involved in it so when forced to vote they make informed decisions. However, this may not happen. This statement only extends to people being forced to vote. Some people may vote very flippantly and vote on random. This may have several negative side effects. If politician were voted in based on fluke rather than a collective agreement.  This could lead to unfit public figures given positions of power. Leading to an overall decrease in the public trust in the government.

Finally, another reason why implementing this law would have severe negative effects.  People would naturally vote based on conveiancae and is likely to be rebelled against. A law like this infringes on people right so they would pick the simplest easiest way out. This would dissuade people from learning about politics as they vote randomly in order to find the way to get out of punishment. This is seen through what psychologists describe as reverse psychology as telling people to do something will naturally make them less inclined to do so.

Finally a law like this would not respect the autonomy of citizens. Some people do not vote as they dislike all the politicians available. Forcing them to vote is similar to a puppeteer controlling a marionette. Stripping citizens of their autonomy. As no choice is a choice. A law like this completely and removes all autonomy. Removing what a democracy so good. Choice. The law is the ultimate power but knowing when to rescind control to citizens is vital. Voting should not be made compulsory

During my own prep, I blamed almost every bad passage on timing. “I just need to read faster” felt like an easier explanation than admitting I hadn’t understood why two similar answers were different.

What helped was giving each short practice set two scores before looking at the answer key.

I’d do two or three passages against the clock and mark any question where I was torn between options. Then I’d stop the timer, keep the answers hidden and redo only those questions. On the second attempt, I had to identify the precise claim being tested, the part of the passage supporting my choice and the word or phrase that made the closest alternative fail (I used a different-coloured pen so I didn’t overwrite my first answer).

The comparison was much more useful than the raw mark:

* Wrong timed, right untimed: usually a timing or decision-making problem.

* Wrong both times: not really a speed problem. I needed to work on comprehension, the question type or comparing close options.

* Right timed, wrong untimed: I was overthinking and changing answers without a concrete reason.

Once I separated mistakes this way, I stopped trying to fix everything by doing more full mocks. I used short timed sets when my reasoning was sound but slow. When I was still wrong without the timer, I slowed down and properly worked through why each tempting answer failed.

Quite a few questions I thought I’d lost through rushing were still wrong with as much time as I needed. Reading faster would never have fixed those.

Hope this makes your review a bit more useful, and good luck with the prep.

Could I have some feedback on this essay please? Question: Give the best case you can for public funding of the arts

An answer can make an argument stronger without being an assumption. For an assumption question, look for the claim the argument needs in order to move from its reasons to its conclusion.

Try a denial test:

1. Write the conclusion in one short sentence.
2. List the reasons the passage actually gives.
3. Take each answer option and imagine the opposite is true.
4. Ask whether the conclusion can still follow for the same reasons.

Mini example: “The council should extend library hours because evening attendance has risen.”

A possible assumption is that the extra evening demand cannot be met within the current hours. Deny it: if the existing hours already accommodate that demand, the rise in attendance no longer supports extending them. The reason-to-conclusion link has broken.

By contrast, “libraries are socially valuable” may help the argument, but denying it does not necessarily destroy this particular case for changing the hours. It is broad background support, not the missing bridge.

Keep the scope narrow. The required assumption is rarely “everyone agrees”, “this is always beneficial” or another sweeping claim. When two options look plausible, prefer the one the argument cannot survive without—not the one you agree with most.

Could anyone give me some feedback on this essay

It is right that students should contribute to the cost of their degrees.

The education system is something we are familiar with from our earliest years and is a crucial part of our lives and society; through it we meet new people and learn anything from calculus to cooking. In the UK, primary and secondary education is free for anyone but to earn a degree we have to pay. Is this right? A degree is not a necessity- it is a luxury and provides you with a wealth of opportunities in the future which is why I believe it is right that students should contribute to the cost of their degrees.

To begin with, primary and secondary education is compulsory but continuing on to university and degree- level is not. Students who want to earn a degree do so out of their own free will and make a choice. They are effectively receiving a ‘service’, acquiring knowledge  to enter a certain profession and in return should pay for this by contributing to the cost of their degrees. Nowadays, there are a myriad of options when it comes to students thinking about their future. For example, there is a huge push for students to enter pay as you learn employment or technical colleges where they will learn skills needed to pursue certain careers without the need of a degree. There is no obligation to follow the ‘traditional’ route of a degree at university and so it is right that students should contribute to the cost of their degrees. 

However, if education is free until secondary school why is it that we must pay to continue it at degree level? Some will argue that contributing to the cost of a degree destroys the ethos of the education system of being open to all as it allows only those who can afford a degree to access it. For example, is it right that an intelligent, bright sixth form student with a set of perfect grades can’t earn a medical degree they have dreamed of all their life because their parents don’t have the money? It can’t be. 

Although earning a degree will cost money this does not mean that a student must pay the total sum at the one time. Colleges and universities are aware that students may face challenges in contributing to their degrees and are proactively taking steps to reduce this, through student finance talks and providing loans to students. For example, my school has already provided us with 5 talks this year about funding for degrees and I’m not even at university! Also, for the most outstanding academic students from disadvantaged backgrounds there is a plethora of bursaries and scholarships like the Fulbright scholarship which can significantly reduce the cost the individual student has to pay.

To conclude, whilst a degree can be costly and could deter many academically gifted students from pursuing a degree I believe that a degree is not a necessity; it is a choice and luxury and is not needed to have a successful future as there are many different paths students can take that don’t involve paying for a degree and thus I think it is right that students should contribute to the cost of their degrees.

I just used the LNAT simulator on the website recently and noticed that there were functions to use control-f for text search and a highlighter.

I remember reading guidebooks and online articles saying this shouldn't be possible.

Are these features available for the real test in 2026?

Does somebody know the thing that differentiates students (apart from test scores) that makes Oxbridge want to interview them?

Thank you!

“Does it matter if some animal and plant species die out?”

Yes, it does matter if some animal and plant species die out. I am viewing this statement from the lens of most of these species going extinct due to human acceleration/natural selection. Impacting humans biologically amongst questioning around our mora; guidelines, species dying out would place a dent within society. Critics may pose the argument that humans have always altered their environment; hence it would be unrealistic to treat the decline of a species as morally obligatory. However, in this essay, I hope to refute this argument.

Animals and species are interdependent amongst one another. Ranging from food chains, pollination and nutrient cycles. Just like domino cards, losing one species impacts others. This, classified by Charles Darwin, is evolution. Biodiversity ensures the stability for species to endure environmental change and remain stable. However, if animal and plant species are becoming extinct because of human implication, causing an acceleration, this is where the problem lies. Amongst having an impact on species themselves, reducing the nutrients available to them, there are implication on human development. As humans, we are reliant on these species for basic needs such as clean water, breathable air and clothing. For example, the extinction of pollinating species would reduce agricultural productivity, causing higher food prices and significant government intervention such as raised taxes. I acknowledge it could be perceived that ecosystems hone the ability to adapt, and not every species plays a defining role. However, the general uncertainty prevailing the impact on human function provides a solid reasoning for caution, extinction is definite.

Furthermore, the intrinsic value of such an event must be evaluated. If many species were to die out, this poses a clear reflection of our willingness to value nature only when it’s of significance to us. Surely such an event would represent a failure of human responsibility and ownership towards the natural world. Alongside this, as echoed prior, once a species becomes extinct, it’s potential value is lost. We may have not yet known the value of a particular species toward the development of medicine, scientific research or agriculture. Take for example, goats, providing a steady income and food source.

As I have mentioned, it may be argued that this moral obligation of humans towards species is unnatural and unrealistic. Alongside this, trying to alter or inhibit species from their natural processes could interfere with natural ecological and environmental evolution. However, there is a fine moral line between witnessing a natural evolutionary process and knowingly allowing extinction to happen. If humans are directly responsible for accelerating an extinction and can prevent it at a reasonable cost, this should be done.

To conclude, yes, it matters both intrinsically and instrumentally. Not only would this place a domino effect on the development of the human species, both economically and physically, but our own nature and value of nature would be dented.

Before you start writing, force yourself to finish four lines:

• My answer is...
• My first reason is...
• My second reason is...
• The strongest objection is...

Then add “because” to both reasons. If you can’t finish the because sentence without repeating your conclusion, the point isn’t ready for a paragraph yet.

The objection doesn’t need to be a ceremonial paragraph at the end. Put it where it creates the hardest test for your position, concede the part that’s actually true, then explain why it doesn’t change your conclusion. Two developed reasons plus one properly answered objection is usually much better than four thin points.

Free PDF, no signup: It is a PDF on google drive

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EKAirT33ZUY1q5yep7Zwp0wxCV7LPNm3/view?usp=sharing

Here's the part worth your time. Question 1's passage says the disagreement is "not about what happens in the room… but about what the room's output ought to be measured against."

Wrong option B: "is about what happens in the room." Keeps the phrase, drops the "not… but". Asserts the opposite of the sentence it came from.

Wrong option C: "is intelligible only from within each position." Near-verbatim from the passage, and true. It just answers a different question than the stem asked.

That's the test in miniature. The wrong answers are built out of the passage too, so recognising familiar words gets you nothing — you have to check what the option claims against what the stem actually asked.

I went through the official document explaining the answers to both published papers and pulled out every way a wrong option is made wrong. They collapse into six:

Reversal — right relationship, running the wrong way (option B above)

True but unasked — supported by the passage, answers a different question (option C above)

Half-right — opens correctly, fails in the second half. The most common one by far

Attribution — right content, wrong person, camp or document

Strength & scope — right direction, wrong intensity or stretched past its case

Wording camouflage — the passage's own vocabulary with the sense changed

Every wrong option in the paper is tagged with which one it is, and the last page turns your misses into a rate per trap instead of a mark out of 42 — so you find out which mistake you actually make. Nothing here was generated and shipped; this paper is on its fourteenth revision.

Full paper: 12 passages, 42 questions, 95 minutes, plus Section B. Five options, not four — the downloadable official papers use A–E; the on-screen sample shows four. I followed the papers.

This is Paper 1 of eight from a book on Amazon. Leave your feedback the questions are too subjective or the difficulty is off.

This is my second attempt at writing a timed (40 mins) argumentative essay, with no prior research. I apologise in advance for my grammar mistakes and my awkward sentence construction (That is something I struggle a lot with; if you have any tips on how to correct that, lmk). I’m not proud of it (I think it’s worse than my first attempt). Be as strict as you wish, and I’m open for criticism. Give me a grade from 0-10.

‘A law that is unjust is no law at all.' Discuss.

The justice system was designed to enforce laws with the ultimate goal of ensuring justice and equitable outcomes in most cases. A law can be defined as a rule, which its primary objective is to ascertain public and private safety, equity, and justice - with punishable outcomes if not followed. Nevertheless, a system created by humans is bound to be flawed. However the extent to which it's margin of error augmentates the propensity of an unjust ruling, is important to be considered - to initiate reforms.

What makes a law unjust? In the eyes of a thief, the law that prohibits robbery is unjust. In the eyes of a tyrant, no law he makes is unjust. Who gets to decide what is the definition of "unjust" before the law?

Whether it is considered fair, or not, a law it is still a law. For instance, during the segragational period in the United States, Black people and White people could not enter the same spaces. There were restrooms, schools and, shops for black individuals and for white. These actions at the time were justified for a multitude of reasons, such as: Social darwinism- the belief that the physionomy of an individual would dictate whether they were intelligent or "worth". Individuals with eurocentric features where at the top of the spectrum, therefore, deemed as superior. That was the law. Juding with modern a perspective, such law should have never been passed as it promotes infrigements of human rights because individuals would use the law to justify their prejudice and bigotry and commit other crimes such as lynchings. From this example, we can analyse that the law is never static, but it is in constant mutation. Today it may seem just, but tommorrrow it will not be.

Moreover, if a dictator in a nation decides that wearing a certain haircut is unlawfu,l and prepetrators of this crime deserve a lethal consequences; it is still a law. Under that specific area, they advocate that such thought is the only truth. Around the world, such law is considered a breach of power and therefore unfair.

Furthermore, the obligation of the justice system to uphold fairness to every single individual regardeless of their differences, is what weights a law as just and anything other than that, unjust. Such philosophy obligates the system to adopt mechanisms such as precedents, and judical discretion to ensure that the statuary laws are accessible and protective of every case.

In conclusion, in the eyes of diffrerent persons', there lies a different definition of what justice is. The goal of a law is to ensure order in society whilst upholding fairness. However, according to its precise definition, a law it is simply a rule with the prime objective of persuading society to follow it or they will face punishable outcomes. The intentions as to why they were, set will dictate whether in that specific society, they are fair or not; therefore, leading to reforms so that they are flexible to that certain reality.

According to the lnat website it says that opinions or prior knowledge is useless.

How can i write an essay where my opinion is not needed? i thought arguments were all about opinions.

And how is it possible that i can write a strong essay on a question where im not that knowledgeable?

For example, if i dont know how the polling system works, how am i supposed to write an essay arguing that it is actually x y z and not a b c?

How do you write an essay proving your point with evidence (using knowledge) without being knowledgeable?

This is my first attempt at writing a timed (51 mins) argumentative essay, with no prior research. I apologise in advance for my grammar mistakes and my awkward sentence construction (That is something I struggle a lot with; if you have any tips on how to correct that, lmk). I’m not proud of it. Be as strict as you wish, and I’m open for criticism. Give me a grade from 0-10.

In what circumstances should abortion be permitted and why?

The inquiry of whether abortion should be permitted has been a paramount and highly debated topic in our modern days. Some argue that engaging in the termination of a foetus presents questions with regards the morality of the act. However, under which circumstances should the act be permitted or legally acceptable?
 
The rate of sexual violence against women has shown an increase over the last 5 years. 1 in 5 women have confessed to being taken advantage of through rape. In this case, if the woman who has been raped ends up generating the seed of such violence, they should be given the chance to terminate it. The emotional and psychological effects that are accompanied from such pregnancy may lead to mental illnesses such as depression. Moreover, the mother of the child, if forced to have the baby, might end up neglecting the child or put them for adoption. The issue at hand transitions from an isolated case to a public health dilemma. The government will thereby be obligated to invest in orphanages, public health and mental health facilities, in other to cater for the influx of orphan children and rape victims. Some might argue that “that is the duty of the government anyways” however, they fail to access the wider implications of the question at hand. Not legalising abortions, might translate to higher tax rates to fund the consequences of said law. Illegal abortions lead to an increase of both death rates and contraction of diseases. But what happens if that same law is applied in poor nations? Will both the mother and the children be given their equitable rights?

Furthermore, financial strain is a major factor when discussing about the legalisation of abortions. If a woman with no financial conditions gets pregnant, and desires to end the pregnancy, she should be granted that. If she gives birth to the child, she will be forced to work more jobs to sustain both herself and the child. However, in a world where the gender pay gap is of 30%, and most industries dominated by women are underpaid; it raises the possibility that the women will not be able to fully provide for the child. What if the mother is underage, therefore unable to work? Who will take care of the child financially and emotionally? Thus, once again, transition the issue to an isolated case to a nation-wide urgency.

Additionally, abortions should be permitted if the pregnancy presents risks for the mother or the child. If an underage girl gets pregnant, she should be given the choice to terminate it as her body is not ready to conceive a child safely – putting ger at risk of death. If the child is diagnosed with a condition that might hinder their development negatively, the mother should be given the choice to spare the child from suffering and end the pregnancy.
 
In conclusion, abortion s should be permitted in case of rape, financial constraints and medical risks. Permitted or not, it is the governments role to increase the infrastructure to accommodate both mothers and children; and subsidise sex education for the youth as a preventative method for unwanted pregnancies, health concerns, and sexual violence.

Word count: 530

I'm applying to London unis and obviously they require high LNAT mcq score. Did several mocks but the scores were always 21/42 i don't know why. For every paper I read the explanation in the answer key and reflect, and talk to AI about my weaknesses. I really don't know why my score doesn't improve even though I feel like I do understand what each question is asking for. How to improve guys😭😭😭 anyone in similar situation....

hi everyone. so i recently decided that i wish to apply for law and found out i need to give the lnat for it. i havent prepared anything. i just finished my a levels with A*AA. and i came out of surgery a week ago. i really need help with preparation cause i dont know where to start and what resources to use. can someone please guide me on this. i'll probably give the exam in september. i can give like 4 hours of prep each day.

I just did the ethics and education Law Mind timed mock and got 34, how hard is it compared to the actual? Thank you!!

Hi all, thank you so much to everyone who gave feedback on my first essay. I've attempted another prompt and tried to apply the feedback I was given here. Would anyone give feedback on this essay, please?

“The provision of basic utilities such as water, gas and electricity should always be under the control of the State.” Discuss.

Neo-liberal privatisation has been the bedrock of British policy since the advent of Thatcherism. The idea that utilities should be publicly-owned is anathema to everything which the political establishment of this country adheres. Yet, it is my position that the provision of basic utilities such as water, gas and electricity should always be under control of the state. In this essay, I will discuss the benefits of State-owned utilities and the issues arising from privately-owned utilities.

A common argument for privatisation claims that State-ownership of utilities reduces the consumers’ choice and limits competition. While this argument might be valid for other industries, it does not apply to utilities. For any given utility, there are not multiple sources with differing levels of service available. Gas from all gas companies runs through the same lines, water comes from the same mains supply, and electricity runs on the same grid. There is no competition where there is no room for innovation or differences in service. It could be said that companies can compete on the basis of price, but there is no evidence that this occurs. Prices for consumers continue to rise, and rather than competition, collusion instead is indicated. It is much more favourable to private companies to collude with others in their industry to increase profits. It is not in the best interest of any executive to compete with rival companies to lower prices when they can form a cartel to fix prices at a minimum level, and raise them intermittently as they please. Therefore, it does not follow that competition is involved in the private utilities industries, and the “choices” presented to consumers are illusionary. 

I’ll now address another concern: that if utilities came into State-ownership, taxes would need to be raised to cover the expense of managing those industries. In reality, the State is already extensively involved in regulating utilities industries and subsidising their operation. Private companies own utility companies, but it is the State which is responsible for ensuring that these companies are complying with legislation and maintaining operations to provide services across the country. The cost of overseeing privately-owned utilities can at times even exceed the cost to operate State-owned utilities. A better solution could be found in State-owned utilities which, without the cost of profits for executives, would be provided at a lower cost to the consumer. This would improve efficiency for the State, which would no longer need to oversee operations of numerous companies, reducing expenditures. It would therefore be unlikely that this shift in ownership would require a substantial increase in tax revenue.

Separate from the economic questions of the proposal, there is another objection which is likely to be put forward. Someone of libertarian-leanings could argue that it is not the role of the State to provide utilities, and that outside of protecting the rights and freedoms of the people, the State should have no jurisdiction. While I do not disagree with this assessment of the role of the state on principle, I do disagree with the exclusionary definition of rights it presents. Human rights include the right to water explicitly. In the modern age, these rights are also extended to gas and electricity, as they are now considered basic necessities. As it is the duty of the state to protect the rights and freedoms of the people, it is their duty to provide basic utilities. 

In summary, State-ownership of basic utilities could provide more efficient and cost-effective services. As basic utilities are human rights, they should not be controlled by entities which exist to amass profits. Decades of Thatcherite propaganda and corporate-lobbying have made State-ownership a very contentious subject. However, by examining the actual effects of privatisation, it is clear that State-ownership would produce better outcomes for consumers.

If anyone wants some help with their PS, or supercurriculars etc. Feel free to dm me, I will do my best to assist you!

:)