@lsoglesbee623 The break is now 10 minutes. It's after the 2nd section and before the 3rd section.

Finished, and feel good about it! I'd say it was a fair test in that it could've been generally way harder (and I'm glad it wasn't!).

To provide a frame of reference and because sometimes people's definitions of "feel good" differs from person-to-person, my past 5 PT tests have an average of 167.8

Hope this is general enough to not violate any of the rules.

For me, the "almost never" in (B) was what tripped me up. In this AC, "almost never" simply means "sometimes."

Anyone else misread the question stem and think this was an SA question? :/

Not sure if this is 100% right, but I found it helpful to put an ←s→ between PP and WD (aka PP ←s→ WD, or some public places are well-designed). So the reason why (C) is wrong is because it claims Coffeehouse —‑m→ Artwork when the conditional is really:

Coffee house → PP ←s→ WD ‑m→ Artwork

The coffeehouse is too far removed to make a valid inference about its/their potential to have artwork.

User insomuchpain's comment is helpful, and the diagramming above is really what they typed out except I added an ←s→ to better illustrate how far coffeehouse was from the artwork. Like they said, "(C) makes the flaw of having the 'most' be in the second half of the conditional logic."

If I'm wrong, please let me know.

I will never look at curry the same way again.

Short answer: yes, that was too much of a jump. I think you made an implicit assumption that "if something becomes more regulated, then it has become more dangerous." But this inference is not alluded to in the passage.

Slightly longer answer: The passage only said that regulations and expenses have increased. You linked this to (A), which states that landfills and incinerators are no longer considered safe (basically read the bolded part as "dangerous"). In other words, landfills and incinerators are dangerous. Full stop. No exceptions.

The EPA could add 100 new rules that just say that the companies managing landfills/incinerators need to track trash better or have more inspections from their own personnel. Gasoline for dumpster trucks could go up $5, which makes operating expenses higher than before. But do either of these mean that the landfills or incinerators have become dangerous? Probably not.

(C) works better since the passage already talks about how water can move along subterranean pressure gradients. (C) builds off of that, which is why it's a more strongly supported answer than (A).

(C) is wrong because the author is not asserting it to be true. The mentioning of "both aim at deterrence" is the author describing the views of legal theorists, not his/her own views.

“Civil liability, these theorists argue, shares important features with criminal liability: both impose punishment on a company, both aim at deterrence, and both degrade a company’s reputation.”

The part of the first paragraph you are alluding to is the author describing what the theorists believe. Read a little bit before the mentioning of "both aim" and you will see a small clause showing that the views belong to the legal theorists:

"Civil liability, these theorists argue, shares important features with criminal liability: both impose punishment on a company, both aim at deterrence, and both degrade a company's reputation."

The tricky part of #24 is that a lot of the answer choices are actually the views of other people that the author is describing, but does not necessarily believe in.

You can take it on lawhub now, but I don't know when it'll be added to 7Sage for analytics.

Rehashing what others said, but parsed down:

Note the present/future tenses in (D) and (E).

(D) mentions productivity will increase.

(E) mentions tech companies are investing in is not contributing to productivity.

Yes, you can use Ctrl+F on the LSAT-Flex. I've used it on the last two FLEXes I've taken w/out any problems.

I wrote this out of frustration after taking a long time reviewing this problem, poring through the comments here on 7Sage and PowerScore forum, and consolidating what everyone's been saying. The explanation below is for myself, but I figured I'd share it here too in case someone needed it phrased differently. Pardon the caps lock, I was mad. I could've rewritten it normally but I'm still mad (sorry).

BASICALLY, THINK OF IT THIS WAY, (D) IS RIGHT BECAUSE WE KNOW ZACK'S OFFERS 1/2 COFFEE ON FREE POETRY READING DAYS ALMOST EVERY (WHICH IS LIKE SAYING "MOST", WHICH ITSELF MEANS "POSSIBLY ALL") WEDNESDAY. THAT COVERS THE "MOST" IN (D). ON THOSE DAYS WITHOUT FREE POETRY READINGS, THERE COULD BE (PRESUMABLY) "PAID" POETRY READINGS. THESE POETRY READINGS WOULD STILL HAVE 1/2 COFFEE, WHICH MEANS (D) IS CORRECT SINCE ZACK'S COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE 1/2 COFFEE ON MOST, IF NOT ALL, WEDNESDAYS. (E) IS WRONG BECAUSE ON THOSE NON-FREE POETRY READING DAYS, THE STORE COULD STILL HAVE POETRY READINGS, ALBEIT PAID, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD STILL HAVE 1/2 COFFEE ON ALL WEDNESDAYS, CONTRARY TO WHAT (E) IS SAYING.