Video Summary - August LSAT Glitch Horror Story

Main ideas & lessons

A reported LSAT “glitch” occurred during the August LSAT, specifically involving missing passage dividers in an RC (Reading Comprehension) section.
Jessica’s experience
- Her test order was RC, LR, LR, RC.
- She believed her last RC was the experimental section because it lacked passage dividers.
- That belief caused her to lose focus and guess on most of the passage, which hurt her performance.
Disagreement about what section actually was experimental
- Discussion threads suggested the section was not the experimental one.
- The hosts note that discussing the test online may violate LSAT agreements, though they acknowledge people still do it.

Assume every section counts
- Do not treat any section as potentially experimental.
- Plan your mindset so you never rely on the possibility that the last section “doesn’t count.”
Do RC the correct way: in order, start to finish
- Read Passage 1, answer all questions tied to that passage.
- Then move to the next passage when you reach the next question set.
- Ignore what the divider/pipe indicator says about where passage questions end (e.g., numbers at the bottom of the page), because:
  - You will still be shown the correct questions for each passage as you advance.
Avoid “silly” RC strategies that could make UI glitches matter
- Doing passages out of order
- Doing the passage with the most questions first
- Doing the hardest passage first

The hosts argue the missing dividers should not affect normal RC workflow.
It might matter only if a student uses nonstandard/incorrect RC methods, such as skipping around passages.

Jessica asks whether she should file a complaint and seek a retake.
The hosts respond:
- You can probably file a complaint.
- A retake is possible, potentially even a free retake (they describe this as uncertain but plausible).
Regardless, they emphasize the lesson is about mindset and process:
- Stop thinking about the experimental section
- Treat each section as the real deal and perform normally

The hosts claim LSAT Demon students don’t depend on test-day “gimmicks” or UI features.
They argue that students should rely on core reading/answering skills:
- Read the question
- Read the passage
- Choose an answer
They suggest that even if features like search disappeared, their method would still work.

Josh Mansfield (host; LSAT Demon teacher)
Nathan Fox (LSATDemon.com founder; host of the weekly podcast Thinking LSAT)
Jessica (email writer; shares her August LSAT experience and asks about filing a complaint/retake)
“Discussion threads” / online posters (referenced as a source of claims about whether the section was experimental; no specific named individuals)