While true, if you look closely at the Feb 2018 DAT the lowest score was a 6 (68 people received) besides the 4 people who received a score of 0. A score of 5 did not exist on this sitting.
Furthermore, if you look at the Nov 2017 DAT the lowest score was also a 6 (98 people received) besides the 3 people who received a score of 0. A score of 5 also did not exist on this sitting.
The Nov 2018 DAT had similar if not the same percentiles but the lowest score given was a 5 (100 people received) with no one receiving a score of 6.
By looking at these results, one could assume that if they had preformed in the exact same manner as they did to receive a score of 5 on the Nov 2018 DAT they would have yielded a score of 6 in the other sittings. This sort of discrepancy should be allowed.
Mcgill also just recently implemented the DAT as a requirement and from my point of view it looked as if they just wanted their applicants to achieve the minimum score (besides 0). Everyone who wrote in the previous 2 sittings would meet this requirement, besides the few who scored a 0. The same cannot be said for the Nov 2018 DAT.