r/LNAT

i got into cambridge for law with an LNAT of 24. and i had an offer from lse.

the fact that i still got an interview after my lnat with a 24 probably shows that your lnat score isn’t everything. your ps, predicted grades, reference, gcses , and everything else in your application still matter a lot. they were not lying about a holistic approach.

i also think my lnat essay structure was probably one of my stronger points, so if anyone wants to see some exemplars of how i structured mine, lmk and i can share some.

my offer was bumped up to 2a* and a*,* but i got 3a* and will be beginning at cambridge this october.

so genuinely don’t let one lnat score convince you that you’re automatically out. your application is much more than one number.

hii! i would really appreciate some advice. im a student going into year 13 and i currently am thinking of applying to manchester, edinburgh, warwick, leeds and liverpool. however after giving it some thought and looking at league tables ive been considering applying to durham. i have all 8s and 9s at gcses and predicted A*A*A so ive been wondering applying to somewhere more prestigious without looking at oxbridge or london.

im happy with the choices i already have but im worried about looking back in 5 years and wishing i had applied to somewhere slightly more prestigious. durham isnt somewhere i would particularly RATHER live than any of the other places ive applied to, its just its prestige for law.

is that a good enough reason to register for the LNAT now and cram in practice before its too late? the cost also worries me because its quite a noticeable financial hit for me especially if im not 100% on wanting to take the test anyway.

any advice would be very very appreciated and i apologise if im being unreasonable!!

**Need some advice on LNAT prep + university choices**

Hi! I’m preparing for the LNAT, which I’m taking on **3 October**, so I have around 7 weeks left. I’m starting to get a bit anxious about whether I’m using the time properly and would really appreciate some advice.

So far, I’ve mainly been practising passages from the **Oxbridge LNAT Ultimate Guide (400 practice questions)**. I’m getting most of the questions correct, and today I did a timed passage and got **all of them correct**. However, I haven’t done many full timed mocks yet, so I’m not really sure how good my current level actually is or what I should be aiming for.

I’m considering **Oxford for Law** and am also trying to work out what other universities I should be looking at. I’d especially appreciate advice from people who have taken the LNAT or applied to competitive Law courses.

How would you structure the next 7 weeks? How many full mocks would you recommend, and how much should I be practising each day? Also, how do you realistically judge whether your LNAT performance is good enough for universities like Oxford?

Any advice on preparation, resources, or choosing university options would be really appreciated!

As this was my first go, I mainly focused on getting my ideas on the document and not so much on redundancy/clarity of argument...Please let me know any feedback and how to improve!!

“Women now have the chance to do anything they want” How would you respond to this qs? 

Intro 

A woman sits in an air-conditioned office, and is the first in her bloodline to have the “chance” to work after her formal education has been completed. However, despite having access to such a chance, she is still discriminated against based on her gender and is salaried significantly less than her male colleagues. While women may have more formal opportunities in the social, economic and public sphere, such as voting and entering the workforce more freely, the phrase “anything they want” serves as a gross overstatement, as women still suffer from sexism, gender-based violence and pay-gaps. Moreover, the term “chance” in this prompt could suggest that women were either previously barred from exercising their full autonomy, or had to gain the permission of some authority to gain such freedom. Overall this prompt fails to consider the intersection of factors such as race, class and immigration status that may restrict a woman from doing “anything” she wants, assuming that women solely exist within a liberal Western monolith, wherein even so women continue to face barriers that undermine their rights and freedom, significantly.

BP1

While women may have legal or procedural equality with their male peers in front of the law, the extent to which this manifests as substantive chance, with addition to the intersection of factors such as gender, class and immigration status, raises crucial debate. For instance, both a man and a woman may be from a similar disadvantaged background as a woman, such as having a vulnerable immigration status, and originating from a working-class and minority ethnicity background. However, the woman in this case will face an extra layer of discrimination that the man will likely not, due to her gender. An intersectional wage disparity study published by Macalester College found that while immigrant status and race carry their own independent wage penalties, non-citizen women face an additional 7.9% wage penalty due strictly to the compounding effect of gender bias. Similarly, the prompt compartmentalises women in such that their experiences are all contained within a single monolith. However, substantially, the real “chance” for a woman to do “anything she wants” crucially lies in where a woman identifies herself across the scale of intersectionality. Even if this prompt may agree with one country’s legal system, the circumstances deteriorate once you leave a particularly Western context. 

BP2

Building on the prompt's singularity, the prompt also assumes an entirely liberal, Western context, as if this prompt was to be applied in nations such as Afghanistan, where the radical, Islamist regime of the Taliban has barred secondary education for women, the scenario would fail to produce a response rooted in reality. Women in the Global South are often restricted by even hypothesising a “chance” for freedom, such as in countries like Pakistan, where 1,000 honour killings take place each year, primarily in response to a woman choosing to do “anything she wants”, such as marrying by choice or pursuing an education. However, some individuals may still argue that such regimes are an example of “cherry-picking”, and that progress is occurring in places around the world. It should be acknowledged that such perspective does represent a partial truth, as in countries like South Africa, gender-based violence has officially been recognised as a ‘national emergency.’ However, what this prompt fails to concede is that the absence of violence against women and their right to autonomy does not exist in any nation. A UN statistic shared that “no country is free of femicide” and that “every 12 minutes a woman is killed by an intimate partner of a family member”. The prompt’s inclusion of “now” treats uneven struggle as an accomplished fact, when women still continue to struggle in “doing anything they want” or exercising their autonomy, albeit from fundamentalist governments, patriarchal cultures or the prevalence of violence against women around the world itself.

BP3 

Lastly, to fully determine the extent to which a woman may have the “chance” to do “anything she wants", internal, sociological barriers must be examined, beyond just the legal sphere. To illustrate, a hypothetical scenario can be abstracted, where if a girl is never encouraged towards a path to full freedom of choice and movement, and is socially redirected to traditional gender norms such as homemaking and childbearing, the want for such “chance” never fully concretises into being exercised in the future. The prompt phrasing of “anything they want” simply assumes that wanting is neutral and unconditioned, however, wanting is shaped by the same unequal environment as opportunity itself. Ideologies such as choice feminism or patriarchal bargaining encourage women to mould themselves inside systems which have been created to perpetuate a certain, traditional ideal, and therefore some women never even fully philosophise the idea of “doing anything they want”, as their future has already been societal determined for them. Therefore, the prospect of having “chance” alone does not fully summarise the contexts in which women exist today, because even if women do practically have access to a “chance”, they may not “choose” to exercise it in order to satisfy societal gender norms. 

Conclusion

Ultimately, while it can be acknowledged that formal opportunity for women has significantly expanded, the prompt’s phrase of “anything they want” is a major overstatement (edited) . Factors such as intersectionality and the disadvantages that follow, ignorance of women in the Global South and the self-limitation of ‘want’ itself compound together to show how this “chance” faces a myriad of obstacles.

Hi all. My daughter would like to complete the LNAT. Can anybody please recommend a book that can help her prepare for the test. Any help with free online resources would also be greatly appreciated. I have read through some Reddit posts and there is conflicting advice regarding some resources. I am in the U.K. and the books that appear on amazon listings as being highly rated are: The Ultimate LNAT guide (William Antony), LNAT practice papers volume 1 and 2 and Master LNAT (Ramana Rao). Please help this frazzled father help his overwhelmed daughter? Thanks to all who can help and offer advice.

I missed my kcl law offer. I had mitigating circumstances prior/during my exams which were accepted by kcl. I achieved AAC, 30 LNAT.

My insurance choice soas accepted me. Kings offered me a guaranteed offer for 2027 if I was to resit only my C grade subject and fulfill the requirement of A*AA, as a result of my circumstances. My two A grades would carry over.

I’m torn between starting my law degree at soas in 2026 or taking a gap year for kcl and resitting my C grade subject. I never previously considered a gap year which is why im sceptical, I’ve always known I wanted a career in law. Pursuing a career as a barrister specifically.

is 45 days of prep for lnat enough to score a 30+ ? considering that currently im getting 20-22 on tough mocks (comparatively tougher than avg lnat tests as per chatgpt and claude)

Same as title

It should actually be helpful, if there's nothing like that for free, please do suggest some good resources

I registration payment complete but when i press proceed and continue it does not go

so i just gave the test from that LNAT new providence website ( Arbitio) yah well i did the test and only got 12 . ALSO why is that website glitching so much i swear it has so many bugs , like sometimes the timer won't start or the answers won't save when i am trying to submit the test . After submitting the test i only got 12 .

( i will be honest i haven't been practicing as much and my attention span is low..sometimes i get mad and just try to skim mindless through the passages )

which ...i am not mad about i was more curious to why i got 12 that is why i am making this post . My first suspicion was maybe its my english since i am not a native speaker and LNAT uses high quality articles essentially with little to some legal jargon .

Either ways i am planning to apply to oxford , Bristol , king's college and some universities in australia which don't require LNAT .

Can someone who has given the LNAT please help and i am also planning to the buy the Big book of LNAT questions can someone give a link for that book like the amazon link because i think its cheaper on amazon .

I DON'T KNOW MAYBE I SHOULD STOP FREAKING OUT OR MAYBE I SHOULD ( my lnat is on 30 sep)

i saw a lot of people were seeing this post ...can guys be nice enough to use my code too- FW8WMB2B for LNAT new providence website so i can unlock more test papers and maybe you know NOT SCORE A 12 ON LNAT .

ahemm....pretty please??

Speaking from my own experience studying law at Oxford, the main thing is not to treat the LNAT like a knowledge test. There isn’t really a universal pass mark, it’s testing how carefully you read, reason and argue.

For Section A, focus on why the wrong answers are wrong, not just why the correct one is right. A lot of mistakes come from picking an answer that sounds sensible but isn’t actually supported by the passage.

For Section B, keep it simple: take a clear position, develop 2-3 strong points, address a counterargument, and stay focused on the exact question.

Timed practice matters, but reviewing your mistakes properly is much more useful than just doing endless mocks.

It is such a bad resource. The passages are extremely long and some of them full of jargon, the questions are unnecessarily lengthy and have the most convoluted logic ever. A lot of these so-called "correct answers" are either unconvincing or just require fifty layers of inferrence. It only makes you feel discouraged and self-suspecting, which I think is detrimental for the actual LNAT performance.

Will my application get rejected for using AI to edit my Personal Statement?

I wrote my personal statement on my own first, but since personal statements aren't really a thing in my country's education system, I couldn't get feedback from my teachers. I used AI to convert my draft into a more academic style. Is this acceptable, or will my application get rejected?

this is a section B essay I tried, literally any advice at all would be appreciated I’m very lost as to what the better answers look like. If anyone could suggest if this would help an Oxbridge law application or not really I’d be grateful 🥲

Should the death penalty be reintroduced for those convicted of serious offences?

The death penalty should not be reintroduced. It offers no novelty sense of justice previously denied, nor does it recognise how the current system actually promotes a harsher form of punishment than death that perhaps is overlooked in its potency.

My reasoning is thus: spending every day doing the same things in the bleak environment of a prison with no hope for reprieve is worse than death. The most precious thing a person has is their life, and condemning them to four walls to ‘live out’ the rest of it denies them the most important aspect of being: truly living. 

Therefore, the argument that an eye for an eye approach should be taken (using the death penalty for a murderer) in order to be as vindicated as one can be after such an event is lost on me as the best way to obtain justice. The primary purpose of punishment for an extremely serious offense is retribution, as the offender would otherwise be given a life sentence with no chance for rehabilitation as opposed to the penalty. Consequently,  the current system of routine solidarity for a biologically social being is perfectly satisfactory as retributive justice, because it denies humanity from the human before taking the life. 

When you condemn someone to prison you don't just take their life. You take their freedom, and force them to face the absence of their autonomy every second they wake. It is abject terror of this form of existence that rather effectively deters a person from committing a crime. The penalty would only subtract from this deterrence by offering a way out. So, critically, introduction of the death penalty would not deter murderers any more than the current system. 

Perhaps then, the recurring debate must be centred around the victims' call for this certain type of justice which takes exactly what was taken. To this, I offer a look into the harshest prison systems in the world, where the people inside live with the hope for the reprieve that death will offer them. If anything, if retribution needs to be satiated, looking toward changing the prison system itself, rather than the penalty, would satisfy the innate need for vindication much better if calls for harsher punishment are still prevalent. 

Proponents of the penalty would argue against the subjectivity of my stance, and reason that whether it is or is not worse than death is a weak reason to deny the victims the option of the penalty, if that is what they desire. They then promote this by saying the penalty would relieve the British taxpayer of funding costs, allowing the money to be diverted into improving other areas of the system. Undeniably, it would save funds. Yet my answer is simple: the money saved will never eliminate the possibility of a wrongful death. 

In the case that the system gets it wrong, and an innocent person suffers the penalty, it is irreversible and, crucially; unforgivable. With technology rapidly advancing, the chances for mistaken conviction are slim, but they are never zero.
I argue that the opportunity to save a convict from prison after however many years of a wrongful conviction is an incredibly powerful one. Not only does it save the person, but it shows that the state is capable of trying to repair wrongdoing and willing to admit to mistakes however damning to their institutions. 
I argue that no amount of money redistributed after introducing the penalty will ever equate to the amount needed to justify the murder of merely one innocent convict. Again, the most valuable thing we have is life, and prioritising funds over potential wrongful deaths however fleeting the chance sets a dangerous precedent for our society going forwards. It is only easy to refute this by continuing to debate in theoreticals by not placing oneself in the agonising predicament of a wrongful convict. The possibility is never zero. 

Conclusively, the penalty would only impact the current system negatively. Promoting the eye for an eye way of thinking for justice is redundant, when one could have a hand for an eye instead. Often, we forget the permanence of death, and with it the sanctity of life. Therefore, denying the penalty symbiotically respects both by ensuring life can be restored from a wrongful conviction, and damned for a wrongful action. The death penalty should not be introduced.

More or less the title, i struggle more with the workload rather than time, as i have sat previous examinations with (in my opinion, please correct me if i am wrong, all my experience is the offcial mock where i scored 22) equal amounts of time pressure, but with lower workload expectations, the exam that comes closest maybe is AP englang, where the mcq style is similar but the essays or excerpts are considerbly shorter.

If you guys would be kind enough to reccomend ways to improve my ability to be able to analyse every essay without running out of the mental capacity to pay equal attention on the next ones would be greatly appreciated. I also would like to ask you guys for online options for practive and studies, as i do not wish to strain my parents on ordering the unusually expensive textbooks (specifically, youtube channels or multipile mcq tests focused on specific theme eg: reasoning)

Thank you for any and all help!

Should the death penalty be reintroduced for those convicted of serious criminal offences?

For centuries, the death penalty was considered a just punishment for serious crimes such as murder. In theory, the death penalty is a fair and justifiable punishment for murder. The victim had their life taken from them, so the murderer losing their life in exchange should be a fair and balanced consequence. Many would argue that allowing a murderer to live out their life in prison on the tax-payers’ dime is a miscarriage of justice and a waste of resources. This lens of the issue, however, ignores the practical and ethical realities of the legal process. This essay will argue that the death penalty should not be reintroduced – not because of nebulous ideals of justice– but because of serious ethical implications and practical inefficiencies.In cases of murder, the perpetrator must face some consequence, usually imprisonment. This, of course, incurs costs to the state and ergo the taxpayer, but simply executing the murderer would not prevent these costs. This is because, in the modern day, a perpetrator is not simply executed. There is a long and involved legal process which must be carried out to ensure that the correct person is convicted of the crime, and to give the accused the opportunity to defend themself. During this, the state incurs costs related to the prosecution, the defense, and the imprisonment of the accused. Reintroducing the death penalty as a possible sentence would not reduce any of these costs, but instead increase them. In several states across the United States, the death penalty is still in practice. Due to the severity of the sentence of death, cases which have this as a possible outcome drag on for years and sometimes decades. If the perpetrator was instead sentenced to imprisonment, the state would save years worth of prosecution and defense costs. Not only does the death penalty not work as a cost-saving measure, it also ends the lives of innocent people. No matter the rigour or fairness of an investigation and trial process, there is room for human error or corruption. There have been several cases in the United States in which a man on death row, facing imminent death, is suddenly exonerated by new evidence. There have, unfortunately, also been cases in which an inmate who has been executed is later exonerated. Though being imprisoned for a crime one didn’t commit is a horrible prospect, being executed for a crime one didn’t commit is much worse. The possibility that an innocent person could be put to death should preclude the reintroduction of the death penalty on moral grounds.Though the death penalty could more completely satisfy some people’s sense of justice, the costs both financial and ethical outweigh the benefits.

Hello. I was practicing on the LNAT's website (https://lnat.ac.uk/how-to-prepare/practice-test/), and noticed that it had been updated to have 4 options, highlighting, striking through and a "search for word" feature. Is this what the new interface for the exam will look like? Being able to highlight and search will really help!

I am an international applicant for law m100 who had firmed a kings’ A*AA offer. I got AAB as I got severely sick during one of my exams. I was vomiting for half an hour and was nauseous and even got special consideration from cambridge but it wasnt enough to offset the damage from being sick. I have medical reports to prove this also.

My insurance queen mary whose offer was also A*AA still accepted me.

What do I do?

I dont feel like going to queen mary. What options do I have?

I want to appeal to kings and ask them to still accept me? How do I do this?

Where should I apply in clearing?

My PS was strong. 24 Lnat. Olevel grades 3A*s 4 As