yeah I had the same go into your 'System Preferences' on the launch pad. From there you want to go to 'Keyboard'. From there you will see 'Screenshots' on the left and the proctor will have unchecked those boxes, recheck them. I'm not sure why video isnt working for Zoom. There would have been no reason to disable video recording on the macbook considering the proctor needs that camera on to watch you. Let me know if you need more help

Thank you for this, you explained it better than JY!

Jesus I thought I was the only one. I've almost completely turned to LSAT hacks for explanations. I love the analytics thats why I still use 7sage, but JY rushes too much and I feel like I'm an idiot when I dont get a question right because of his tone

I got this wrong because I immediately crossed off A because I felt it made an assumption not stated in the stimulus. The more "pressure" drivers feel. Pressure is never stated and its an assumption that honking impatiently increases your pressure is it not? I selected E because it also makes an assumption but to me it provided another explanation for the phenomenon occurring besides "possessiveness", namely "anger".

Where am I failing here?#help

This one is tricking because of how you need to identify the problem posed. It's not HOW the modern keyboard is QWERTY. It's WHY. B says it inherited it, okay, that explains HOW the modern keyboard is QWERTY, but it doesn't say WHY. A actually fills the missing gap for B as well. It says that "people demanded it"; "it" being the QWERTY keyboard be used for modern keyboards. This is the only explanation for WHY the modern keyboard is still QWERTY.

I was struggling to completely rule out B even after watching, but I think it should be mentioned also that B says obliged morally to make sure they don't assume ANY appliance is permanent. Well if a seller isn't planning on keeping the appliance, its irrelevant whether they assume that or not, the appliance is staying in the home. A became a better answer after I realized this b/c its saying "under the condition that the seller is keeping a large appliance." Only then do they have an obligation. The stimulus provides no proof that if the appliances are staying in the home, you have any moral obligation.

I'm extremely confused. D says that they believe people older than 25 are unlikely to change their habits. Great! So what? That doesn't explain why 25 and under are targeted. For all we know, 25 and under ALSO don't change their habits. Or in other words, you have to assume that because they believe that 25 and older don't change habits, that the opposite must be true? That's a ridiculous assumption.

Additionally, who cares what people 46-55 do? It doesn't say they spend the most money on products that are advertised on TV. Just because they spend the most money per capita has no relevance to why 25 and under are targeted by TV ads. Furthermore, D discusses 25 and older, but we only know the spending of 46-55.

I fail to see why D is correct and A incorrect. They say the same thing. A says its crucial to target those who are most likely to buy their products. We already know from the stimulus that 25 and under are targeted. Its explicitly stated "they focus almost exclusively on 25 and under." So we know for a fact 25 and under are the target, and A is saying whoever is targeted is most likely to buy products that are advertised. Hence, why 25 and under are targeted, they are the most likely to buy. This explains what's happening.#help#help#help#help

I am in a similar situation, don't go for a fourth. At the end of the day the letters are not going to be the most important reason you get in, ultimately all the want in a LOR is knowledge on how you are as a person. 2 academic and 1 professional is what I'm doing. I wouldn't go anymore. Btw, for my academic's my professors asked I send them previous papers written with them and my course load with them. So that they can tailor their LOR to those things and be able to specifically reference work with them. If possible see if your professors will do the same. Quality over quantity ALWAYS!

Perfect explanation, thank you for clarifying. If possible, do you have any suggestions on what the mistake would have been for those who didn't choose B. Is it the assumption that lower theft compared to other stores, means increase in profit?

Q3 I selected right during Raw, but Changed to B during BR. My reasoning was that "have not read" assumes way too much. You can not read Marx and still understand marxist theory: listening to lectures or watching a documentary. Not reading is not sufficient to conclude a lack of knowledge. Furthermore, I went with B b/c we know Sembene's narratives come from an oral tradition and given B we know that most oral traditions use Binary Oppositions, in the passage the author says "it seems likely it came from his African Oral traditions". Why is it likely? Because most oral traditions use Binary Oppositions, and Sembene's uses oral traditions.

I'm convinced questions like these are put in by LSAC to modify scores how they want, in other words, stop too many people getting too high of scores. Both answers seem entirely logical to me.

Frustrating, went with AC D, in round 1 then b/c of extra time I came back to it and selected D again, but then changed to C. Why am I this way

After I read you comment I was still struggling to fully understand why A is correct, however, I went and looked back at the stimulus and I realized the most important word is "allotted". I feel like J.Y. glosses over this too quickly, but we are measuring how much foreign tv is allowed in the developing nation, that is directly answering the "access" of foreign tv. The word "allotted" alone, is all we need to know that A is correct. Your comment helped tho to make it clear so thank you!

Answer choice A is actually correct, D is not

I couldn't originally see how E was wrong because I still assumed that if most aren't wearing seat belts thats why the fatality rate hasn't changed. However, there's also another hidden assumption, E says most this suggests that some did wear seat belts and still died. Well if some did wear seat belts, shouldn't we see at least some decline in the fatality rate? Even if it is .1% decline.

I still think A leaves way to much open, it suggests that going faster is more deadly, this is plainly untrue. Speed doesn't kill you, suddenly coming to an abrupt stop do. Correlation vs Causation. However, it is more inclusive whereas E doesn't even address the people who did wear seat belts.

After enough time I have figured out the reasoning. A isn't wrong for the reasons given below, you can conclude that insomnia is the cause of the weaker correlation. Furthermore, one could argue that any decrease in correlation is evidence. However, it doesn't matter.

This is because, our job is to strengthen the authors argument by any means. He makes a jump that if you're not significantly affected, melatonin is not helpful. We have to accept this as true and then we need to strengthen this argument. "A" does not do this, yes there may be a weaker correlation but it does nothing to bridge this gap. C is the only one that provides further proof of the link between being significantly affected and not having insomnia. Again, the goal is to provide further evidence that melatonin is not helpful if it doesn't significantly affect you.

I struggling to eliminate A, the reasons people are giving is that we cant assume that the insomniacs were the cause of the weaker correlation but, I dont understand how. We know that studies eliminate external variables and it can be assumed that nothing changed in the two studies except insomniacs were added. After all, what scientific study removes or adds a variable and cannot conclude that added variable is the cause? That fundamentally goes against scientific principles. The fact alone that insomniacs were added to the other studies is proof alone that a weaker correlation is tied to the insomniacs, regardless of how much weaker it is! If adding insomniacs causes a weaker correlation, then that strengthens the authors argument. #help

I had trouble with this on both the BR and the Raw b/c of the wording "should be discontinued". I took this as because of sever side effects therefore should be discontinued. I thought the goal was well if not everyone has sever side effects there is no need to discontinue the drug, after all you can not prescribe a drug and still have the drug available. Also, the stimulus says "the newest drug" this would imply that there are other drugs on the market that treat the same disease. Well if you have other treatments, just because the illness is bad doesn't necessitate keeping a certain drug on the market. So I concluded B incorrect as it doesn't account for this. I chose E because it attacks the argument that severe side effects therefore, should be discontinued.

What am I doing wrong here? #help

For anyone struggling this is why B is the correct answer, fyi I stole this info from scrolling down to other comments!

B says Oxygen in muscle, so what? We are looking for Oxygenated Blood! I got this question wrong because I thought "who cares what horses can do?" But AC A talks about oxygenated blood, setting a precedent for O.B. in the Spleen. B never says O.B. is stores in muscle tissue.

What helped me in trying to answer your question is remembering that in a stimulus we have to accept all things as true. The importance with remembering this is we have a gap in logic with the first statement, if you don't vote society will crumble etc. Okay so if we accept that as true, we have to ask ourselves why? Why is it society will crumble/lose cohesion? When answering that, you're forced to turn "act or omission is not right" into a premise used to support our gap in logic. Society will crumble because, "if large numbers of people did it, it would be socially damaging." Everything that follows the gap is a premise used to fill it.

If we do the same with "act or omission by one person is not right" and accept that as true, nothing the precedes or follows fills any gap in reasoning, yes they're examples, but they don't help prove anything logically. Illustrations and analogies are not good ways to prove a point. Therefore, we are forced to conclude the MC is that if we don't vote institutions will collapse etc.

Late on the response, but the generally is used in two ways. The first in the stimulus refers to the older way of thinking. AC A refers to how people are thinking now, but we don't have any information to conclude how people are thinking now generally. We only have the word of one researchers theories, he could be correct and still people generally think the ice was continuous.

I got it wrong because I thought the spleen was a muscle, or at least made of muscle tissue. I really hope these types of questions have become less likely, it's ridiculous to expect LSAT takers to know anatomy as well, at least enough to know that it is or isnt muscle.

I think this is why theres a lot of recommendations on video tapping yourself doing PT's, you can objectively see how you progress through the test

#help I got confused with this because i thought "the painting" referred to Rosati, as in the reproduction will still be an inaccurate painting of Rosati. Instead, "the painting" refers to the reproduction of Kostmans painting. There's something fundamental I missed here, does anyone have recommendations on how to improve on this?