Ah I found it, it's under Analytics and scroll to the bottom, click on the 3 dots on the right for anyone else who comes across this and needs to know.

Sweet! Is there a way to delete any manually imported data? I'd much prefer to use the complete data import feature.

Is there a need to transfer billing to the new site? I'm able to use both sites fully without doing this step.

Please, please fix the log in issues on the new site. I was in the middle of building a custom drill, and when I clicked submit, it seemed to have timed out and logged me out. I had only been logged in for about 15 mins, and it prompted me to log in again with a magic link. The new site would be so much more usable if there were the option for saving a native password, face ID, pass key, literally anything else on the site itself and not have to get inundated with log in links in my email inbox every quarter of an hour.

Has anyone found a way to manually enter drill questions on the new site? I see the option for manually entering prep tests, but for drill purposes, I'd like to add in specific questions done rather than have each test submitted as a whole. That would mess with the analytics a lot since it'd be submitted undone questions as incorrect.

@ said:

@ Yeah, I hear you! We're working on keeping you logged in longer. I expect that change to come through before the end of the week. Once that ships, you'll stay logged in.

Awesome, looking forward to it!

Fully agree with the benefits of the new site, the platform looks super nice and clean, and was definitely a better experience every time I used it! I just still have issues with logging in. I have to open a separate tab every time I want to log in to open my email account and log in through the emailed link. Is there any way to integrate a password or even a passkey system to log in on the website itself? I'm just not going to be connecting any 3rd party accounts to login (I saw Google and X), so I'm left with magic link login as my only option.

Will the new website let you log in and stay logged in without having to use an emailed magic link every time? That's one of the reasons why I stuck to the old website; it's such a pain to have to log in every single time I open the website with no option to use or save a password.

Absolutely recommend doing the foundations first. Go through the lessons thoroughly and in order. I still use those foundation skills (finding the kernel sentence especially) when I'm stuck between answers more so than any tricks I picked up during the LR curriculum. It's basic but makes an incredible difference in timed conditions.

These questions tend to be the source of my errors on RC too. When drilling passages, anytime I see a stated question, I force myself to go back and read the section where the idea was discussed - low res summary helps a ton with going back and finding the right section. Use the search function to find the word or related word if you remember it being brought up but not exactly where. Reading the passage slower and making good low res the first time around has helped a ton with not needing to go back and reread any sections.

With implied questions, I treat these as MSS questions. Basically the same rules apply to the ACs: 1. they can't be too strongly worded, and 2. they MUST be supported by the text. If I read an AC and any part of it is questionable, where I know in my gut that the AC is misrepresenting something the author wrote, I eliminate it. Especially if the first half of the AC is perfect, the second half can say something so tangential, it's just wrong. Unsupported text = get that out of here. The ones where I'm not actually entirely sure, I leave the AC open and check back with the text. A lot of the time, I can POE my way to an answer that feels so obscure, but can be the only one right because it fits those MSS criteria, especially that first one.

Agree with commenter above! Have been taking PTs on here but been wanting to switch to Lawhub because the actual exam would have that exact same interface. It's super helpful for RC too with the search function and getting myself used to the highlight function there. I haven't switched yet because I'm still drilling in between PTs, and the drills depend on weaknesses this platform identifies from the PTs.

There's a conditional relationship established in the premises, but it's also a highly specific one that applies only to one professor: if W tenure --> W eligible for raise, but the premises don't say that this is the only way to get a raise. The rationale for the AC to weaken is that it attacks an underlying assumption: that the conditional relationship is the only way to get to the necessary condition outcome, and that it also applies to the other professor. But that's not true, just because you negate the sufficient condition doesn't mean the necessary condition can't happen any other way. The AC shows an alternate way to get the outcome of receiving a raise. (This is also a common flaw. Negating sufficient doesn't allow you to make any conclusions and same with affirming necessary).

I think this question and AC shows why it's difficult to learn much from third party sources making up examples. This doesn't seem like a reasonable answer choice to me. This book example is trying to show that such a general conclusion may not apply across the board to all surgery types, a whole to part flaw as you mentioned. But I completely understand your confusion; the AC they say is correct wouldn't actually weaken the support structure in my reading of the stimulus because they discuss average surgery times in the premises and make a reasonable conclusion about the general speed of this observed class of surgeries. The fact that simple surgeries are faster is already factored into the calculation of the average speed of this type of surgery, so adding that information is not weakening, just explains that within the superset, a subset may buck the general trend. I agree with you that this is not a weakener at all.

Now I remember why I stopped reading the LSAT trainer...great info about structure, but the examples were not airtight like the official ones usually are. Someone else please chime in if there's something about #2 that makes the AC weaken!

"Finally, I have no diversity bonus points for an add-on essay." Everything before that sentence suggests otherwise. Left a cult and had to do online school to get you on the right track? There is certainly a case to be made about difficult circumstances to put in an addendum.

It also would not hurt to ask a professor for a recommendation anyways. Were you diligent in sending in assignments? Asking for help or questions even if the classes were online or submitted writing you were particularly proud of? Any class which you felt like you excelled in, I would strongly suggest asking that class's professor. Even asking them for advice would be a huge confidence boost. Sometimes you can find all kinds of support in the unlikeliest of places!