@ good deal, I really appreciate the thorough explanation!

Awesome!! I just did the ATD on an LR section from PT80 and went -0 (it was my second ATD) — I did say everything out loud so even though it was untimed, I’m sure I went well past 35 min. Still, I’m super excited to hear you made it work under time! 🎉 It gives the rest of us hope. 🙏 Also like your version of the acronym! 👌

To save time, do you think it would help to look at the stem first before reading the stimulus? Maybe it’s from having used 7Sage mostly, but the habit of reading the stem first is pretty ingrained for me; I also think it puts me in the right frame of mind to approach the question & come up with my CLIR quicker vs. waiting to read the stem until after translating.

—

Also interested!

@ said:

if you're a Mac user, google "proctor U set up for Mac" before the day of the exam, there's a good Reddit thread on it.

I'm having trouble finding which thread, would you mind posting the link to it?

I hate math.

Is the proper way to negate (B) to say it's not likely old OF's were drained AND (not likely) new OF's were discovered? I translated the negation as "not likely old OF's drained OR new OF's discovered", meaning one of them could still have happened.

If anyone could link to the lesson for negating "or" statements, I'd really appreciate it -- I looked but couldn't find it, although I do believe it exists.

I took my first flex PT and scored the same as I did on my previous real (5-section) take for whatever it’s worth — I think the scoring will be consistent as JY says. 🤷 Try alternating between both versions and see what happens.

I understand why (E) is correct, but during timed I didn't even make it that far -- I chose (B) and moved on. I thought (B) was eliminating another cause besides the Euro earthworm that could've been responsible for the goblin fern decline, essentially blocking an alternate explanation that would weaken the conclusion.

What am I missing here so I don't make this mistake again? #help

Going into the ACs, I thought the flaw was circular reasoning..

!@#$*%^&

sobs like Salem

☝️ me after seeing I fell for (A).

@ said:

Congratulations! If it's not too much trouble, would you mind sharing a link or direction to the different system online that led to the boom, perfect every PT' for logic games?! Sounds like it would be worth checking out!

Ditto! @

I feel like we could draw an arrow from "canceled" to police dramas, so the chain would read N(L) ‑m→ C → PD, making it easier to see how (D) strengthens.

> @ said:

> Hi guys! Thank you all very much for the explanations - however I still seem to be having issues at the very end of the of the explanations...

>

> So the correct answer choice (B) is "_The concentration of O-18 in the **seawater** is increased_".

>

> And I understand everything in The 180 Bro_OVO's explanation right up until the part where it says "This is the answer in B.", because the conclusion right before this part is "_As a result, the **ocean** water has a higher level of O-18_."

>

> I'm so sorry if I'm the only one who cant seem to grasp the logic behind this jump, but shouldn't answer choice B say "OCEAN" instead of "seawater"? What am I missing?

>

> Thank you so so much!

IMO ocean water and seawater are one & the same. Sometimes you'll find the LSAT might change verbiage in this way & so you have to be a little open-minded when it comes to the AC's. It might not state verbatim the words in the stimulus; you have to make the assumption that they are synonymous, which I don't think is an unreasonable jump to make in this scenario. Hope that helps!

You go girl!! 🏅

I’m slightly confused on how exercise “depends on” state of health; I’d translate “depends on” to “requires”, so wouldn’t that still be E →(causes) less sick? I thought the thing that’s depending on something else goes to the left of the arrow? Maybe I’m just getting this mixed up with lawgic translation, but I thought the same idea behind the translation applies for drawing out correlation/causation relationships.

#help

For me the wording here was just so tricky: "size of the [IN] determines whether or not [they] can contract disease X".

When it came to E, I didn't take the conclusion to mean IN & disease X were "causally linked" since it doesn't say a larger IN "causes" the contraction of disease X, only that they "can" contract it. So in this case E didn't seem to anything since I didn't take the conclusion to mean they were "causally linked" -- in other words, I thought "causally linked" means A (larger IN) causes B (disease X).

I guess if a factor causes eligibility (for lack of a better word) to contract a disease, that can be said to mean the same thing as that factor being causally linked to the disease?

#help

This is a damn math question.

Got major RRE vibes from this question, just goes to show how interrelated the different question stems really are.

For me personally, it was easier to understand (D) intuitively.

If they can't communicate, the only way to detect them is by sending a spacecraft.

In other words: if we're going to detect them, there are only two ways to do that → (1) communication or (2) by spacecraft

Translate into lawgic (making "detect" & "determine" interchangeable):

detect (A) → send spacecraft (B) or communicate (C)

communicate (C) → at least as intelligent (D)

/send spacecraft (/B)

------------------------

determine (A) → at least as intelligent (D)

[A → C → D]

I wish more RC passages would be as interesting as this one!

This definitely reads more like a disguised RRE question to me.

Starting to consider taking the GRE if things go south with my next LSAT take. Do you think a GRE score that's in the median or higher percentile could boost an application with below-median LSAT scores?

Will there be an announcement once the exams + feedback are posted?

Unlocked all 3, keep ‘em coming! 💸