- Joined
- Aug 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
If you have concerns regarding the new UI, please submit feedback to LSAC https://www.lsac.org/send-us-your-feedback. It doesn't take long, and if enough people speak up, maybe they will listen. Here is an example of a complaint with regard to the new answer-choice elimination feature and highlighter functionality. If you have similar concerns, feel free to use this as a template:
Dear LSAC,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the new user interface introduced for the August 2026 LSAT and beyond. Specifically, I am concerned about the changes made to the answer-choice elimination feature and the highlighting functionality.
The updated answer-choice elimination feature now requires test takers to toggle the masking/strike-through tool before they can eliminate an answer choice. This adds unnecessary steps to a task that was previously completed with a single click, increasing the time and attention required for an action that many test takers perform repeatedly throughout the exam.
Similarly, the new highlighting feature is significantly less efficient than the previous version. Rather than automatically highlighting selected text, it now requires interaction with a pop-up menu before the highlight is applied. While this may seem like a minor change in isolation, the cumulative effect over the course of a timed exam is meaningful. Test takers frequently rely on highlighting and answer elimination as integral parts of their testing strategy, and introducing additional clicks and interruptions creates unnecessary friction during an already highly time-constrained assessment.
Beyond the immediate impact on efficiency, these interface changes also disadvantage individuals who have spent months preparing with the previous testing platform. Many students have developed habits and workflows around the prior interface, and changing core functionality shortly before or during an active testing cycle forces them to devote additional time to adapting to the platform rather than focusing on the skills the LSAT is intended to measure.
I respectfully request that LSAC reconsider these interface changes and, if possible, restore the previous single-click answer elimination feature and the automatic highlighting functionality. At a minimum, I encourage LSAC to evaluate whether these modifications meaningfully improve the testing experience or instead introduce unnecessary obstacles that do not enhance the exam's purpose or fairness.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your willingness to consider feedback from test takers and hope these concerns will be taken into account in future updates.
@Aquamoon Using this link is one way in which you can submit feedback to LSAC: https://www.lsac.org/send-us-your-feedback
Please voice your concerns to LSAC. If enough people speak up, maybe they will listen.
Please voice your concerns to LSAC. If enough people speak up, maybe they will listen.
Recently I've noticed that the custom timing feature on LR and RC drills has been a little finicky. For example, if I want to create a drill and set the timer for say, 15:00 minutes, the page will start glitching once I begin entering my desired drill time into the text box. I never had issues with this before, but now, it feels like I have to fight my computer every time I want to create a custom time'd drill. Has anyone else had issues with this?
There are aspects of both the citizen's argument and the correct answer choice that are extremely ambiguous. Specifically, "follow my example" in the conclusion and "do not make the same exception" in AC A. This destroyed me, so if this was also the source of your confusion, hopefully this helps.
There are two ways to interpret the phrase "follow my example."
Interp #1: "follow my example" = (literal action) voting for your own neighborhood incumbent.
This interpretation makes the citizen's conclusion contradictory, i.e., if everyone in Mooresville voted for their own neighborhood incumbent, all incumbents running for reelection would win, and the council's membership would stay exactly the same as before.
This is logically equivalent to saying if the sky is blue, then the sky is not blue.
Under this interpretation, the citizen's conclusion makes no sense. It is self-defeating.
Interp #2: "follow my example" = (applying underlying reasoning), i.e., supporting the neighborhood incumbent not simply because she is the neighborhood incumbent but because she has the experience necessary to ensure neighborhood interests are served.
Under this interpretation, the citizen is calling everyone in Mooresville to adhere to the same criteria when casting their vote.
Regarding AC A.) The "exception" that the citizen is making is choosing to vote for their own neighborhood incumbent who is running for reelection despite stating earlier that they were going to campaign against ALL incumbents running for reelection. So AC A is telling us that some people simply campaign against all neighborhood incumbents. In other words... some people do not vote for their own neighborhood incumbent.
To be clear, this AC does not mean that some people vote for other neighborhood incumbents (from q stem, we know this is impossible); one plausible alternative could be to vote against their own neighborhood incumbent running for reelection and to vote for the neighborhood challenger (new candidate not running for reelection, but running for office for the first time) instead, presumably because they are better able to serve neighborhood needs. Another could be to simply not vote at all. I'm giving plausible alternatives simply for clarity's sake. After all, this is a
In the context of interpretation #2 and everything we were told in the stimulus, AC A.) means that when the citizen's reasoning is universally applied, some neighborhood incumbents did not pass/meet the citizen's criteria. And thus, in "following the citizen's example," the various neighborhood incumbents did not universally get everyone's vote.
This is necessary/MBT:
FOR the city council's membership to change substantially, there needs to be new individuals holding these positions once the election is all said and done. The only way this happens is if the various incumbents running for reelection are not universally voted back into office.