Hi! Can you also add me? Also looking to study seriously.

Email: hayworthzm@.harvard.edu

Please add me if it's not too late: hayworthzm@.harvard.edu

Thanks!

I just finished my LSAT Flex. I had no technical issues at all and really enjoyed taking it at home.

Similar to what others have said, LR seemed totally normal, LG on the easier side, RC on the harder side (really just quite long). Looking forward to June 5!

Congratulations to everyone who completed the test.

This question really stumped me, both the first and second time I looked at it (the first time I got it wrong I put it in my "tough questions" log to come back to in the future). Once I figured it out, I learned an important lesson about a nuance of sufficient assumptions.

The stimulus states that J was murdered, and if a person murdered him, that person was necessarily in J's office on the day of the murder (Murderer → in office). We learn that S and H were both in the office, so they satisfy the necessary condition for being the murderer. We then learn that if H had done the murder, he would have left footprints or fingerprints behind, and if S were the murderer, she would leave neither footprints nor fingerprints behind. So HM → Footprints or Fingerprints; SM → Footprints and SM → Fingerprints. Only Fingerprints were found, but they weren't H's. Therefore: S was the murderer.

Analysis: Immediately it occurred to me that there were two problems with this argument. The first is that the argument requires the assumption that only H and S were in the office on that day. The second is that the argument seems to require the assumption that the fingerprints were not Samantha's. At first read, I thought that both were needed in order to make the argument valid. Thus I was confused by the stem, which asks for a single sufficient assumption.

In reality, though, the two necessary assumptions are not equally powerful. Let's start with what we know: The only prints in the room did not belong to H therefore we have a negated contrapositive of (HM → Footprints or Fingerprints) and hence H is definitely not the murderer. Now if we grant the assumption that the fingerprints were not Samanthas, we are a micro-step closer to a valid argument, but all we have done is satisfy the necessary condition of her being a murderer, we haven't provided a sufficient condition. We still need to guarantee that no one else was in the room and that Samantha is our only option for murderer in order to have a valid argument. However, if we go the other way and prove off the bat that there was no one else int he room besides H and S, we have no other option besides S to implicate as murderer, since we have already validly exculpated H.

The answer choices:

A) This is like the answer choice E about Samantha's fingerprints in that it is another necessary assumption required by the argument. But it is also automatically established if the condition about S and H being the only ones in the office is fulfilled.

B) Not relevant

C) Bingo

D) The argument states this explicitly, it is also not a sufficient assumption

E) a necessary, not a sufficient assumption

I'm aiming for July, but would love to be on board with you guys. I will DM op as well.

@ said:

Anyone surprised at their score? Acc to mine I got a 166 which is the equivalent of 17 wrong, I was a bit shocked at this. I was thinking if you basically double the # wrong in LR you'd get a pretty close estimate of a non-flex test score, I have no idea what's going on with how flex is graded. Would love to see at least a score breakdown

My score was almost exactly my PT average. Was yours above or below?