Hey guys, I posted this question on reddit a few days ago but received a response that wasn’t very helpful. So I decided to post the same question here to see if anyone knows something about it.
I was subscribed to “LSAT Prep Plus” in 2020, when it first came out, and in 2021. Before, depending on how you adjust the browser to suit your reading comfort, each of the RC passages could be made to fit on the screen in its entirety, provided you had a large enough monitor—I guess slightly bigger than your average laptop screen would suffice to bring this about.
However, I haven’t “logged in” to access the Prep Plus in 2022, and today I looked at the free sample PTs on their website and saw some major changes that I find discomforting. As you can see in the screenshots I provided here, the main passages are cut in the middle and you can’t see the whole of the main text for each of the passages without scrolling up and down, which I think also happened to be the case with LSATs administered on the tablets for a brief period before COVID struck.
I am registered for the January exam, and because I spent significant time preparing in previous years, I decided not to re-subscribe to the $100 per year subscription to the questions on their website.
Does anyone know anything specific about these changes, like when it first happened, and whether there’s a way to work around it?
Oh, I just realized I can’t post pictures up here. So, if you want to see the screenshots illustrating what I’m talking about, please visit
https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/zrimx4/changes_to_the_lawhub_interface_with_rc_passage/
Thanks a lot.
P.S. I was a monthly subscriber long ago, and J.Y. has the best explanations!
“The only thing you need for A is B.”
First, one can see that B is a sufficient condition for A, so B → A.
Can or must B also be a necessary condition?
“The only thing you need to get a car is lots of money.”
[lots of money → get a car]
But is this necessarily the same as
[to get a car → lots of money]?
You might be able to get a car without having lots of money if you can receive it as a gift, so it is not the case that [to get a car → lots of money], and hence it should also not be the case that [A → B] in the original example.
“The only way to have C is through D.”
Here, it seems that D is the necessary condition and C, the sufficient condition.
I didn’t notice it before, but they seem to be contrary statements or statements of mistaken reversal, as some would call it?