Has anyone used a mobile hotspot on an official exam recently? I used a hotspot when I took the exam in June 2021 and I had no issues. I don't think I let my proctor know that but my phone was in sight of the camera the whole time. I'm retaking the exam this Saturday and I just read over the rules and it says that we can't use a hotspot or VPN...I don't know if this is a new rule but I'm not really sure what to do because my WiFi does not pass the internet speed test but my hotspot does. Anyone have any insight?
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
What really annoys me about some SA questions is that the AC is something that seems so obviously said in the stimulus that it feels really overkill to pick it. Like obviously we want to reduce accident rates!! But then you go back and realize it actually wasn't explicitly stated and our brains are just tricked into thinking that it was because of the everyday assumptions we make in language/ conversations.
The way I confidently thought this was an SA question even during BR... Definitely only read the second half of the question
My issue with these parallel questions is that I tend to focus on the structure too much. It felt wrong to pick (C) because it didn't lay out conditions like the stimulus did. It just had one. Is it just me or have these modern LSATs make these parallel questions harder by purposely making the correct answer a different structure yet still the same reasoning?
I also see (D) as introducing reverse causality which seems pretty common to me on the LSAT. (D) is saying that repressors' sociability (or the desire for sociability) causes them to repress emotions. But we want to know why repressing emotions causing sociability.
Thank you so much for sharing!! I was able to schedule as well. Good luck ya'll!
When JY says at 3:02 "how else can they push a MSS from this?" can't you easily infer/conclude that PC ←s→ GDF?
This arguments seems to conform exactly to Valid Arg 9.
A ‑m→ B
A ‑m→ C
------------
B←s→C
I get that this would not change the AC since there is no statement like this, but just want to make sure I'm not obviously missing something. Because I really don't understand why else JY would say that.
Whoever made this question is lunatic
I picked C and I want to add another point to JY's explanation as to why C is wrong that might help someone. My thought when picking C was "oh great this is showing that there actually was a true increase and it's not like A was always productive." But this is completely wrong because we are dealing with a comparison. The stimulus didn't give any numbers -- it's not like they said "Workers in Group A made 600 products and Group B made only 400 products." That's definitely something where we NEED to know the baseline because what if Group A was always more productive?
But the argument blatantly said that Group A's productivity increased. It's also the same idea when dealing with percentages. If the stimulus said that A's productivity increased by 40% then who cares where they started? The bottom line is that it explicitly stated that there's an increase so we don't need to question the baseline.
It's so frustrating that you can point out what the flaw is while reading it but still not be able to find it in the answer choices because of the way the LSAT phrases it.
this question is the reason i have trust issues
You can do it on the admissions page! They have an option just for this where you purchase for an hour.
The difference between this LR section versus PT 91's LR section is stark. I can't even believe these tests are supposed to be similar. The RC section and games sections were pretty similar but this section is significantly harder.
Re: #18 - I must really be missing something because I thought the passage was saying that if they are not interbreeding, then they are the same species. That's exactly why I chose (C). I kinda see the reason why I'm wrong but damn the wording in the passage is so confusing. I'm curious if other people had this issue.
The hardest thing I find about flaw questions is that I don't even understand / follow the argument so I can't see the flaw and then I realize later on that the reason it was so hard to follow is because it's flawed !!!
To be able to contain your confusion and figure out what the argument was trying to do (but where it ultimately failed) is a whole new level of mastery.