Remote Testing Failures
The most dominant theme from this administration was not the test content itself but the severe technical problems that plagued remote test-takers. Multiple students reported being unable to resume their exams after the intermission break, turning what should have been a routine pause into hours of frustration.
Intermission freeze-outs: The most common complaint involved remote proctors being unable to unpause tests after the mid-exam security re-check. Students described being stuck staring at their screens for extended periods—sometimes hours—while waiting for a proctor to restore their session. In several cases, students were told to exit the testing platform entirely, only to find they could not log back in. Some spent three or more hours on hold with both LSAC and Prometric trying to resolve the issue.
Proctor delays at launch: Even before the test began, some remote test-takers waited an hour or more after completing the security check for a proctor to actually start their exam. One student described being essentially forgotten by the proctoring system, with a second proctor eventually appearing only to require a fresh security check.
Lost attempts: In the worst cases, students were unable to complete the exam at all. Some reported this being their second or third failed remote attempt, with LSAC treating the incident as a candidate cancellation rather than offering an automatic retake. Many filed formal complaints and requested permission to retake on April 21. The overwhelming sentiment from affected students was clear: remote testing through ProProctor remains unreliable, and many vowed to test in-person going forward.
Logical Reasoning: Harder Than Expected
In a notable departure from recent administrations, Logical Reasoning was widely cited as the most challenging part of the April exam. Students who typically consider LR their strongest section reported feeling unusually pressured and uncertain.
Difficulty variance between sections: Most test-takers received two LR sections (with some receiving three due to the experimental). A consistent theme was that one LR section felt significantly harder than the other. Many described the harder section as containing questions that were more convoluted and time-consuming than anything they had encountered on recent practice tests, with several students reporting they ran out of time on the last three to four questions.
Heavy emphasis on certain question types: Students noted an unusually high concentration of Necessary Assumption, Strengthen/Weaken, and Resolve questions on at least one section. Several test-takers also flagged the presence of complex double-negative constructions that made stimulus arguments harder to parse under time pressure. Parallel Flaw questions also drew complaints for their length and complexity.
Second-guessing and flagging: A recurring pattern was students flagging far more questions than usual during LR, only to find they lacked sufficient time to return and review. This is particularly notable for test-takers who typically finish LR sections with time to spare on practice tests, suggesting the difficulty was genuine rather than just nerves.
Reading Comprehension: A Welcome Surprise
In contrast to the LR struggle, Reading Comprehension was broadly described as easier than expected. Many students who normally dread RC found themselves pleasantly surprised by the manageability of the passages and questions.
Passage topics and density: RC passages covered a wide range of subjects including natural science, legal theory, migration patterns, music theory, and international trade. While some passages were denser than others, students generally felt the topics were accessible and the questions were answerable from the text. One passage involving deep-sea animal behavior drew particular attention for its memorable and entertaining subject matter.
Comparative passages: Some students received a Comparative Reading set while others did not, depending on which RC sections were scored versus experimental. Those who encountered comparative passages described them as having denser topics but questions that were not unreasonably difficult. Students who received two RC sections without any comparative sets noted this was unusual.
One harder RC section: Test-takers with two RC sections consistently reported that one was noticeably more difficult than the other. The harder section featured more complex legal and scientific topics and tighter question-answer distinctions. Students who encountered this section last—after three prior sections—were hit especially hard by fatigue, with some resorting to guessing on the final passage group.
Experimental Section Confusion
As with every LSAT administration, one of the four sections was unscored (experimental), and the anxiety around identifying it was heightened this time.
Varied section configurations: Students reported receiving a wide range of section orders, including RC-LR-LR-RC, LR-RC-RC-LR, LR-RC-LR-RC, and even LR-LR-RC-LR. Those with accommodations who received only three sections provided some clues, but there was no clear consensus across the test-taking community about which specific sections were experimental.
Day-to-day variation: Because this administration spanned three days (April 9–11), students discovered that the scored and experimental sections may have differed by testing day. This is consistent with LSAC’s practice of using multiple test forms, but it added to the confusion and made it essentially impossible for students to determine which of their sections counted based on comparing notes online.
Impact on morale: The experimental section uncertainty compounded the difficulty of the LR sections. Students who had one particularly brutal LR section clung to the hope that it was experimental, while those with three LR sections and only one RC faced the unsettling realization that two of their three LR sections definitely counted.
In-Person vs. Remote Experience
The contrast between in-person and remote testing experiences on this administration was stark.
In-person: generally smooth: Most in-person test-takers at Prometric centers reported positive experiences. Common themes included minimal wait times (some started 30–45 minutes early), helpful proctors, noise-cancelling headphones provided at desks, and no technical disruptions. A few centers experienced isolated issues—one reported all computers freezing mid-test, requiring a 20-minute reboot, and another had a fire alarm go off twice—but these were exceptions rather than the rule.
Remote: widely negative: Remote test-takers described the experience in far harsher terms. Beyond the intermission freeze-outs described above, students reported feeling anxious about security re-checks, awkward room scans, and the general unreliability of the ProProctor platform. Students with accommodations (such as extended breaks for ADHD) expressed particular concern about whether their stop-start breaks would trigger additional technical failures. Those testing remotely from international locations had more mixed results, with some reporting no issues at all while others experienced the same failures as domestic remote test-takers.
Writing sample complications: Several students also reported issues with the LSAT Writing submission, with error messages appearing even after successful completion. Some discovered that having browser extensions like Grammarly active during the writing portion triggered technical difficulty flags, potentially voiding their writing sample.
Scoring Expectations
Student sentiment on scoring was cautiously optimistic for those who found LR manageable and RC easy, but deeply uncertain for those who struggled with Logical Reasoning.
Comparison to practice tests: The majority of students described the exam as slightly harder than recent practice tests (PTs in the 140s and 150s series), though a meaningful minority felt it was on par or even easier. This split likely reflects the impact of different experimental sections—students who received a harder experimental LR section may have perceived the overall test as more difficult even though that section did not count.
Score release timeline: Scores for the April 9–11 administration are expected around April 29, 2026, approximately three weeks after testing. Students should resist the urge to obsessively reconstruct individual questions and instead focus forward on June preparation if a retake may be needed.
What to Do Next
Whether you left the April LSAT feeling confident or defeated, here is how to make the most of the waiting period.
- If you tested remotely and experienced technical failures: File a formal complaint with LSAC immediately if you have not already. Request a retake for April 21 or the June administration. Document everything, including timestamps, error messages, and proctor interactions.
- If you felt strong on RC but weak on LR: Remember that the experimental section makes it impossible to know your true performance. One of your LR sections did not count. Wait for your score before making any retake decisions.
- If you are planning to retake in June: Focus your preparation on Logical Reasoning, particularly Necessary Assumption, Strengthen/Weaken, and Parallel Flaw question types. This administration confirmed that modern LSAT LR sections are trending toward more complex and time-consuming stimuli.
- Consider testing in-person for June: The June 2026 administration is the last remote testing opportunity before LSAC transitions to in-center only in August 2026. Given the persistent remote testing issues, testing at a Prometric center is strongly recommended if one is accessible to you.