@ said:

Actually, Flex will work in Surface Go and LSAC has sent them as loaner devices. I have also heard your scores won’t be released until you send the tablet back.

Surface Go's leans more towards laptops with detachable keyboard and a touchscreen but I can see why it might be called a tablet.

I should have elaborated only computers/laptops with full OS (Windows or Mac) will work with ProctorU which Windows Surface Go' definitely have.

Just FYI, the LSAT FLEX will only work with PCs (Mac included) and laptops. ProctorU will not work on tablets, smartphones, chromebooks.

@ said:

Alright that’s what I’ll do! Thanks so much for the advice

no problem! Good luck :)

@ said:

I’ve just gone by the syllabus. So I should go back and blind review my diagnostic later? Or just take my score for what it is and move on i the curriculum?

I would recommend just take a mental note of your score, as that is your starting point, and go ahead with the CC.

BR is an opportunity to take time and really think why the correct answer is correct, and why the incorrect ones are not. Based on your post I don't think you'll get much results from BR since you don't have the theory down yet.

Try retaking the same test after you go through the CC, BR then, and compare your scores.

I would recommend doing drills of in-out games as those are the most lawgic focused heavy. You can make problem sets and filter only in-out logic games and have at it.

@ said:

Hi everyone! It’s my first post on 7sage so here goes..I just finished my diagnostic test and am getting ready to start the blind review process. I haven’t done much of the core curriculum. When I circled questions while doing the test I found that I was certain about almost none of the questions. On one LT section I have twenty questions circled. Is this too many to be beneficial? Or is this pretty typical when first starting out?? Thanks!

You haven't even learned the basics as you stated you haven't finished the core curriculum. It's not surprising to see someone who hasn't study the test, ending up circling almost all the questions during their BR on their first diagnostic test.

> @ said:

> Can't seem to find the reason for why choice A is correct but B is incorrect.

>

> Please #help

The stimulus starts by asking the question essentially asking

_'would it be okay if the government got rid of all the regulations regarding toxic substances in food'_

This is our sufficient condition of the entire argument. Immediately after the question we see _Only if_, introducing our necessary condition, which states 'only if we can _literally_ 100% eliminate toxic substances in food' but the author continues essentially elaborating.

He takes the word 'toxic' literally by saying technically some foods naturally have toxic substances but its so little its no problem. Furthermore, he points out the fact that detection of substances are ultimately limited by human technology and therefore we can't even know if we literally have zero toxic substances on food.

All of this is basically a big fat way of denying the necessary condition, pointing out _only if_ we achieve these obviously practically impossible conditions can we have the sufficient. Deny the necessary, you deny the sufficient

_'would it be okay if the government got rid of all the regulations regarding toxic substances in food'_

which is (A) basically saying the government shouldn't rid their regulations and continue to regulate what is acceptable.

(B) is incorrect because the author is basically saying zero toxic is impossible. As he takes the idea of zero literally. Absolute zero in literally every single thing considered food.

@ said:

@ said:

oh ok, thank you! I did not realize that you could not do that, sorry! Is that a IP security measure, or is that just because the function does not exist yet? @

Hi there,

Unfortunately, we don't have this feature, but I have taken note of your concern and will pass it on to the team.

Please let us know if there is anything else we can do for you.

Is there a way we can have duplicate PT scores saved on our accounts? I'm going through them once more and would prefer to keep the old data while logging the retakes.

@ said:

@ said:

Using chrome on a macbook. Seems to be more pronounced the more text is in the AC section and/or more pronounced the lower in the AC section you scroll. Typical? Any way to correct?

https://i.imgur.com/7k0dzmW.mp4

Hi there,

Sorry for the trouble!

I tried to take PrepTest 88 and 89 and went through all 27 RC questions. Unfortunately, I am unable to reproduce your issue. The answer choices does not appear to wiggle like how it is shown on your video. These were done on Chrome, Firefox, and Edge using Windows.

Can you please let me know which PrepTest you used on the video? Is there a specific PrepTest/Problem Set that you are having this issue the most?

Just went through all of PT 88. Problem occurred for that test along with several others. I'm using a Mac with Google Chrome.

It doesn't really matter as your BR score will be reflected accurately regardless. Personally, I would still check the same answer if I think it was correct during BR just as an indicator that you thought about the question/answer again and are doubling down.

That way if you got it right, great! Your mental reasoning was most likely correct. Try to strengthen it. If you got it wrong despite doubling down, bummer. But it is also a very valuable question as it can reveal what your weakness was for that specific question and help you try to avoid it in the future.

Sufficient assumption questions are all about noticing the G A P. An easy way to do notice it is by correctly labeling what is the premise and what is the conclusion (as well as knowing what parts are just context and fluff).

Usually, least for the easier ones, once you separate the conclusion from the premise theres often a new idea introduced in the conclusion that wasn't stated in the premise. This is the GAP. SA questions will ask you to take that new idea in the conclusion that link it to the idea that the premise gives.

Example: Candidates who are qualified end up as outstanding employee. Therefore, since we want outstanding employees at our company, we hired Lexi.

Notice the GAP? The conclusion introduced a new idea (Lexi) that wasn't part of the premise. We need to link it to the premise which will be something along the lines of: "Lexi is qualified". Because if we don't link, there is nothing in the stimulus indicating that Lexi will be an outstanding employee. Only after we link "Lexi" and "qualified" can we logically be led to the conclusion that therefore Lexi will be an outstanding employee and that is why she was hired.

The answer, [B], isn't a [C→P] but rather a comparative statement, saying you learn more about a spot when you spent a lot of time there compared to when you only spent a little amount of time.

Technically the stimulus can be put as [P→C] but so can all valid arguments. I wouldn't even consider this a question where translating to lawgic is helpful. Its more of a argument by analogy with the important part being that both tourism(T) and reading(R) a new book share the goal of wanting to "enlarge understanding rather than simply to acquire information".

It argues because its better to stop and smell the roses while travelling, it is also better for book readers to "stop and smell the roses" by not prioritizing quantity of books read but rather fewer book and spend more time with each.

Answer choice [B] strengthens this by adding additional support for the shared goal (enlarge understanding) between T and R.

without assuming you did the translations correct, it's hard to see what you're asking for.

Got any specific examples?

I've gone through most of the preptests and questions and I recall only once (maybe twice) where the correct answer/actual flaw was actually circular reasoning.

It almost never appeared before and I can't imagine it becoming more common in the near future either.

I think when people get stuck at the low 160s is when the wrong answer choices start to reveal more of your shortcomings than the correct ones. It is also the time when blind review really starts to shine.

you can click on the 'CONVERT' button on a prep test page and there you can enter your answers as if you're bubbling them into a sheet

he's basically saying repeat the games until you get all the inferences down

an example of a weak sauce question from the test writers. Unless I'm missing something, I honestly think this is a question that should have been removed from scoring.

@ said:

@ On the one in May I got a 166 and before that I was PTing around a 165, having taken 20 practice exams. My scores for the RC and LG sections would usually be around -3 and the LR would be where I would have the most trouble but on test day I thought the LG section was the one I screwed up on ironically. As for goals, it’s hard to say because I’m still researching different law schools at the moment. I‘m a little naive to the process of applying to law schools and I’m not sure what matters most coming out of law school whether it be school reputation, grades, or work ethic, and that’s definitely a contributing factor to my questions about retaking the exam. Sorry for the rant, thank you for taking the time to respond!

Regardless of what you decide to do, I think it's safe to say with the LSAC providing LSAT FLEX tests recently, there has been no easier time to "try out" another test.

You can take the test at the comfort of your own home and the test is significantly shorter.

Given that schools only really care about your highest score, and that another retake wouldn't be your 4th, 5th+ retake I'd say go for it.

Right click -> open in new tab

This way you can retain your question page while viewing the explanation video

@ said:

Does flex allow accommodations?

Yes

@ said:

There used to be drilling kits by lr question type from earlier pts do they still have those?

Those have been replaced with the problem set maker. You can make problem sets, filtering out any sections, question types, and difficulty level with it.

The problem set maker can be found at the top of the page -> Resources -> Problem Sets

The argument in the stimulus is trying to conclude overall electricity use will reduce. Whether if the incentive for the reduction was monetary, environmental, or whatever is irrelevant.

Try granting answer choice [E] as if it was correct. Say those "some people" reduced their electricity use because they're tree huggers and given that they're rich tree huggers, the cost of their electric bill is little to no concern to them.

Does this weaken the argument that overall electric use will be reduce? No it doesn't. The reason WHY one reduced his/her electricity use isn't the issue here.

If answer choice [E] said, some people literally do not give a damn for any amount regarding their electric bill, I think your reasoning would be correct.

But thats not what it say. It says some people CONSERVE for other reasons than monetary. Conserve electric use -> reduced electric use. [E] doesn't weaken the argument as it is perfectly consistent with it.

"how do we know that the tenants who had no financial incentive to save energy did not have some sort of other incentive to save energy?"

We don't. Ok grant that they had other incentives to save energy. So what? In the end they saved energy just on different reasons.

I think your reasoning that

"My problem with C was that, in order for C to weaken the stimulus, we'd need to assume that the landlords would take out the energy-conserving equipment once they install the energy meters."

would be correct IF the stimulus was referring to a SPECIFIC case and not speaking in generality.

What if the overall amount of electricity conserved by the tenants (after switching to the new system) is less than the overall use of the now-not-as-energy-efficient-appliances?

Remember, we don't have to 100% wreck the argument in this case. Just cause the most doubt in the reasoning of the argument.

"If some people conserved energy for non-financial reasons before landlords installed the energy meters, then this would make it more likely that these people would not care about the new energy meters because they never saved energy for financial reasons in the first place."

Answer choice [E] brings up a new idea that wasn't mentioned in the stimulus, which is cost savings (granted financial incentives is mentioned).

Even if there are some people who do not care about their electric bill all, does this weaken the argument?: because some tenants do not have to pay for their electricity, they have no incentive to reduce electricity use. Therefore, if the landlords of those tenants switched over to a system where the tenants do pay according to their use, then overall electricity use will be reduced.

Without introducing some other factor that does indeed help (like answer choice C, unlike E), the argument still stands. Based on the premises, the overall electricity use will most likely be reduced. It doesn't matter if a few of the tenants don't care about the cost of their electric bill at all.

I think the answer would be yes only if there was causation on top of the correlation.

For example, if there was a correlation between eating meat (A) and heart disease (B) and studies have proven eating meat does increase rates of heart disease, then I believe in this case /A is correlated with /B.

However, if wasn't the case there was causation and the A, B correlation was in fact just mere coincident, I don't think it would imply a /A correlation with /B as a change in one (to zero in this case) wouldn't affect the other.