Free LNAT guide, no signup, sources named and linked
What LNAT score do you need?
There is no universal target. Section A is marked out of , while each university chooses how to use that score and the separate essay.
Start with the score you actually receive
Section A has questions. Each correct answer earns one mark and wrong answers lose no marks. Section B is sent to universities as your essay, but it adds no points to the mark out of .
A useful score claim needs four labels: university, course, admissions cycle and cohort type. Applicant, shortlisted and offer-holder averages answer different questions.
Read the university numbers with their labels attached
| University | Dated reference | What it can tell you |
|---|---|---|
| Oxford | offer-holder mean, - | A strong recent cohort marker. Oxford also marked the essay internally. |
| UCL | offer-holder mean, - | UCL says no score guarantees an offer and gives the essay considerable weight. |
| King's | offer-holder mean, - | Historic M100 context rather than a future threshold. |
| LSE | offer-holder mean, - | Section A normally carries the LNAT decision for most applicants. |
| Durham | offer-holder mean, - | A dated cohort description. Both LNAT parts may distinguish close files. |
| Bristol | - historic planning band | The current statement confirms that Bristol staff assess the essay. |
| Glasgow | in the supplied planning data | Low-confidence context because the source year is not attached. |
| SOAS | No reliable figure supplied | Keep the blank instead of inventing a target. |
These rows use different years and group definitions. They are deliberately left unnormalised so you can see the uncertainty instead of hiding it behind one neat league table.
Averages do not behave like grade boundaries
- An average does not reveal the lowest successful score.
- A score does not give your offer probability without the rest of the application.
- A strong Section A result does not erase the essay where the university reads it.
- A historic number may move when the applicant pool or selection process changes.
Worked example Find the conclusion, not the topic
A council wants Sunday library opening. Supporters cite crowded Saturdays and shift workers. Sunday hours would require more money or shorter hours elsewhere. The council should publish usage by time slot before deciding whether Sunday opening reaches people who are currently excluded.
Which claim best states the author's conclusion?
- Every library should open on Sundays regardless of its budget.
- Shift workers already use libraries more than every other group.
- The council should reject Sunday opening because it costs money.
- The council needs usage evidence before deciding whether Sunday opening broadens access.
Why this works: The fourth answer follows the final sentence and preserves the author's condition for deciding.
Why the tempting route fails: The other answers inflate a qualified proposal, invent evidence or reverse the author's position.
Set a target that changes your practice
- Finish all questions and record the passages where rereading changed your answer.
- Use the middle three of your last five fresh timed scores as your current band.
- Compare that band with each dated university reference, then add the institution's essay policy.
- Keep ambitious choices and sensible alternatives because no average predicts a decision on its own.
Sources
Oxford Law Admissions Report 2024-25. Shortlisting weights, applicant and offer-holder Section A means, and Oxford essay marks. Read the reporthttps://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/Law%20Admissions%20Report%202024-25.pdf
UCL Laws application process. The current Section A benchmark process, - averages and essay weight. Read UCL's processhttps://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/study/bachelor-laws-llb/applying-and-entry-requirements
LNAT Consortium results. University-specific use of Section A and the essay, plus candidate result timing. Read the official pagehttps://lnat.ac.uk/what-is-lnat/results/
Historic outcomes explain old cohorts. They cannot promise a future admissions decision. UniGenius is independent.