Yup, you are wrong. July, August, October, and November were all scheduled for in-person exams until their respective dates approached and the rate of Covid did not decline. You might be thinking about the switch to digital but in-person exams, which I believe LSAC transitioned to in June 2019.

A note on waiting, too. It might not just simply be about whether you are good or not good at LR. Some might be waiting because they do not have tech/and or do not have a quiet space. My deadlines compel me take the flex in November, but for the sake of not benefiting the better off, I hope the in-person, more or less identical test environment, returns as soon as possible.

Thanks!

That is a very generous offer that I hope someone takes you up on. I got a digital subscription to The Economist four months ago and I have seen a two point increase on RC.

I would be interested in the Scientific American pdfs. I've sent my email address to your inbox.

Are there any especially interesting articles that you'd recommend that I read?

I like RC, too. It's clear to me how this section could be relevant in law school. People give it a hard time because it is not clear that six months to a year could make much of a difference in scoring, and therefore it does not reward merit.

I think, however, it does reward merit, but you need to step back a lot longer than anyone specifically studies for the LSAT. It rewards students who were very much engaged with reading during their undergraduate degree.

Wonder if Powerscore offers a forum wherein their students vent disapproval of 7 Sage? What's the deal that "lawgic" thing?

Sent you my email too.

If three people max does not include yourself, I am interested. 158 average: minus five average on LR. Available anytime after Saturday.

As a monthly subscriber, I have been considerably out of order. I started with some LR, as the course recommends, and certainly I have seen some progress. But in order to justify my monthly expenses, I needed to dive into LG, as this is my weak spot, and as 7 Sage has a reputation for being quite good at illuminating this section for LG challenged applicants such as myself. After just having spent some time in LG I saw some positive results, which convinced me to keep my monthly subscription.

I am reserving RC for last, as I do not expect that RC is as teachable as the other two sections. Moreover, if you think about it from a business perspective, it makes sense that RC is where it is. If you place the section that is not very teachable, if teachable at all, at the very beginning, you would certainly risk losing monthly subscribers if the subscribers adhered to ordering of the sections, for they may well conclude that the course fails to instruct.

I second the comments here that suggest that flex is different, as not only is it three sections, but it also involves less blind reviewing.

That being said though, before I decided to do three-sections, I planned for 1 PT a week; with Flex, I'm doing two PTs a week.

Good question. I have a love/hate relationship with ambiguity on the LSAT.

In your example on PT. 70, does not 'typically' (used once in the stimulus, and once in the correct AC) serve as a quantifier? The stimulus, I believe, allows for some managers to be impacted by said policy, but they are not typical. I think managers refers to managers generally, and as they generally are not impacted by said policy, nothing can be inferred about the typical benefits of said policy.

The AC on PT. 71 is really shrouded in mystery. If the answer had read some doctors, then it might seem like it does not really support the argument all that much, as the claim was that most malpractice occurs because of....But if it said most, or all, then it might seem completely outside of the stimulus and not supported at all.

I think the best way to explain this diction is colloquially. Take, for example, the sentence: Professors foster, by their grading, the perception that they are inflating grades. The claim is not some; nor is the claim most. But if there is grade inflation, then there must professors fostering grade inflation. Likewise, if there is a perception among patients that doctors are acting in such a way, and if the stimulus tells us that doctors do indeed act in such a way, then doctors fostered such a perception.

If either LG or RC exchanged places with LR, by taking up two sections rather than one, then I think there would be a fundamentally different test, where someone who scored a particular score on the normal test might see a score that is quite a bit different-- imagine missing not one, but two LG games.

Probably there are differences with the three section test, but I wouldn't imagine it's within plus or minus three.

I do not think there any disadvantages to ordering your lessons so that you face your weakest first.

I have mixed and matched a bit in terms of ordering on the CC-- currently, I have done 24 hrs. LR CC, and 2 hours LG. My LR score has not changed after 24 hrs, whereas my LG, after only doing two hours, has gone up five points.

There are also, I believe, multiple tests for the flex period that may or may not have the same level of difficulty, which means that how many you can get wrong depends on which test you get. For this time period there are multiple tests, with perhaps multiple scales. The sample sizes to determine difficulty are almost certainly a lot smaller than normal, as usually tens of thousands of students take any given LSAT, but I imagine that LSAT has enough reason to think that how well thousands of students do on a given test will roughly approximate how well tens of thousands will do on that same test.

Something to do with the camera-- connected at first, then the connection was lost. Honestly though, after two hours of sitting and starring at the screen, I am kind of relieved that I am rescheduled. The awful part was waiting nearly half an hour simply to talk to a technician.

Yup, thanks for the detailed response Christina.Parchem. What you describe in your second paragraph more or less matches how I handle LR questions of which I am uncertain, with the exception that I probably will reread the ACs that I think are more likely to be correct, rather than sequentially reading AC's A and B to see if I too hastily overlooked them. Other than that, the process is still similar. The stimulus is read; the ACs are read; some answers may be eliminated. Is that what skipping refers to?

Honestly though, I was relieved that I didn't have to write after waiting for nearly three hours.

I have no other option. They did fix the issue, but by that the testing window had closed.

Can't help you with technology, but I can tell you that the exact same thing happened to me today. I also spoke with a technician days before, who said it would be okay. I also am signed up for Friday, and I also will be using the same device.

Needless to say, it has been a stressful day.

Just a question about the tactic of skipping on LR: when you skip a question on LR, is it skipped entirely? Or do you spend the time, if possible, to eliminate some of the more seemingly wrong answers, narrow the plausible choices to two or three, and then move on?

My question would certainly be about the the relationship between morality and law.

I hope you enjoy your experience. I once was fortunate enough to be in a class where we had a Provincial Supreme Court judge talk to our class (BC Supreme Court, I''m up North). She was on the bench that made a monumental decision regarding assisted suicide. She's probably the only genius that I've met.

Enjoy your discussion!

Indeed, RC passages can be sexy!

My take is this: strong at LR means consistently strong at LR, and even though the flex does not offer the opportunity to double up, being consistently strong at LR is an asset on the flex.

Suppose your range is -2 to -4, and compare that to another range, say -4 to -8. Sure, some some test takers in the latter range will get -4, but probably just as many will also get -7 to -8, and they will not have the opportunity to balance out the score with another LR section.

For consistently strong, and for the consistently bad, a one section LR is a good sure thing; for the competent but occasionally very good at LR (which is probably a lot of test takers), a one section LR presents a big gambol.

Hear, hear to the proposition that standardized testing is a classist scam!

I am kind of in a similar boat with LR. Over the last five tests, I've seen three -4s, and three -8s. Consequently, too, bigger picture, and with the other sections taken into account, I've seen a scaled score fluctuation of 9.

I think many people, even after doing numerous PTS, will see this sort of fluctuation.

Sure, the uncertainty can be jarring, but I at least take comfort in the fact that seeing a -4 or even a -3, is a plausible score on the flex.

Yeah, I think engaged for RC hits the mark. Visualisation potentially keeps people engaged, and given the length of RC, disengagement can be a serious liability. It's not that the picturing in itself elucidates, but I think it is more likely to keep a reader awake at the wheel.