Please, as someone who was confused on Sufficient and Necessary, just practice that until it is engrained in your brain, until it feels intuitive what is necessary and what is sufficient.
Personally, for weeks, I would go about my day and just make up random conditionals about the moment.
"If I see the library in front of me, I am on the south side of campus. It is necessary for me to be on the south side of campus to see the library. If I see the library, it is sufficient to say I am on the south side of campus. If I am not on the south side of campus, I cannot see the library.......etc etc etc" Do this whenever you have free time to think/brainrot, at least just a couple times per day. It really helps the understanding.
Very strange question can someone explain it to me? I feel like this is extremely poorly worded because what if the current size of the Florida panthers habitat is lets say 5,000 square feet. C) says unless larger habitat, their population will not be self-sustaining. What if we increase their habitat by 1 square foot? We just increased their habitat to be larger but it made no functional difference to their habitat thereby rendering C incorrect. X + Y, where Y > 0 but this is seems untrue? Maybe im doing too much
@ChrisBos I think you are confusing sufficient and necessary. A self-sustaining population REQUIRES a larger habitat (SS -> LH) or contra (/LH -> /SS). Increasing the habitat alone is not enough to guarantee a self-sustaining panther population (as you noted with your 1 square foot example). Whereas the existence of a self-sustaining panther population IS ENOUGH to guarantee that the habitat increased in size. "Larger habitat" is never on the left side of the conditional arrow, therefore larger habitat does not trigger any necessary conditions (because it is a necessary condition itself). All we know is what happens if the population is self-sustaining (SS) and what happens if the habitat is NOT larger (/LH).
did not seem like something I would have worked out on my own.
When I tried to rationalize it for my self, I took note of the "any" as a Group 1 sufficient condition indicator, and qualified "more of these animals" AKA more panthers as the sufficient condition. And then understood it as there can NOT be any more of these animals, turning it into /more panthers
Then, I translated "their current habitat is NOT large enough as /current habitat
So for me it looked like: /more panthers--->/current habitat.
However I'd have to look back at the stimulus when hunting for the answer to understand that by /current habitat, I meant a habitat that is large enough.
It's definitely clunky but I'm struggling to naturally come to the video's way of interpreting that last sentence.
I'm intuitively able to come to the correct answer every time for these types of questions without having to create a conditional chain. Should I be mastering drawing out the chains regardless of my ability to use intuition to solve these MBT questions? I feel like I always take a long time to map out the chains, much longer than I will get per question on a real exam.
@Shawndeo5 I honestly feel the exact same... I haven't been drawing out the lawgic but I am consistently getting these correct. Not only the MBTs, but the other question types as well. If we're intuitively doing well, should we even bother with the maps? Someone please let us know!
@AlexZelaya234 I would still do them in blind review to reaffirm you know why you're getting the correct answer. You could run into harder questions on the actual test, and that's when mapping will come in really handy.
why are you assuming that you have to increase the habitat? what if experts put them in a controlled, enclosed space to help breed more panthers (250+), but it isn't their original habitat?
@ktacklesthelsat also, there was a question similar to this where i did assume that the animals were to stay in their own habitat, but it was wrong and the explanation warned of not assuming these kinds of things
@ktacklesthelsat Remember that everything in this stim is being presented as fact. It's a fact that their current isn't large enough to support more than 70-100 panthers. Therefore, if they're going to reach the numbers sufficient to be self sustaining, they necessitate a habitat that is large enough to support them.
@ktacklesthelsat as Ryan mentioned you must take everything as a fact. Here we know you cannot have more than 70-100. It isn’t a suggestion. It is a fact.
Think of this analogy:
You and your friend both weigh exactly 150 lbs and are planning on sitting on the same couch. The couch cannot withstand anything over 300 lbs.
if you take everything here to be a fact, what must be true is you cannot add another body or even an extra lb as 300 is the limit given. Anything over 300 would result in a broken couch or an extension to the fact making the fact no longer a fact. If you have 301 lbs on it then the weight limit is obviously not 300 anymore.
Within the stimulus you know 70-100 is the limit given and if you add simply 250 then the limit is no longer 70-100. (You disproved it by adding 250 when the limit is supposed to bWhich means you didn’t take that fact as a fact. B seems tempting and what the LSAT tried to do here is catch those off guard who are working too fast + relying on indicators. What I mean here is one may have seen 250 and self sustaining (both facts of the premise) and said “oh that’s good!” When in fact it disregarded one fact! It took one fact as false (the limit), but 2 as true (exceeding 250 and being self sustaining). This is why it’s important to not rush and take everything in carefully
@ktacklesthelsat For questions like MBT, you take the stimulus at face value. You start assuming, you end up with the wrong answer. Anchor to the stimulus and look there and ONLY there for support.
as someone that struggles with formal logic & struggles with finding the contrapositive on the spot and probably would've chose B as an answer, is a good way to also think about this type of question is by saying to myself that B is not a good answer because its not really inferring anything but rather just repeating whats explicitly stated.
@NakimRyan Maybe jump back to the conditional logic lessons. I found that it helped to remember that the sufficient condition will ALWAYS be on the left side of the equation and you can only read these equations from left to right.
We also know that "if" signals a sufficient condition.
when you see that answer choice B starts with "if the population exceeds 250+"
(250+ --> self sustaining)
you can automatically eliminate that answer choice because our equation from the stimulus doesn't start with that. our equation starts with "if it is to be self-sustaining"
(self sustaining --> 250+)
OR
(/250+ --> /self sustaining)
Now, if answer choice B started with a contrapositive to our equation like "if the population doesn't exceed 250," then we could consider it since it gives us a valid starting point
Hmm ... what if we found a way to genetically modify panthers to adapt to a this current habitat? The stimulus does not necessarily demand that the current habitat be made larger, the stimulus leaves open other possibilities no matter how unlikely. Therefore, C would not qualify as MBT?
Just speculating - it is clear that C is incorrect via POE.
The frustrating part of the answer choice of "oldest mistake in the book" is that technically B is correct, if 250 or more than self-sustaining. BUT that doesn’t follow with what the ENTIRE stimulus says.
The stimulus says that current habitat is holding 70-100 and can't support more. 250 would mean self-sustaining, but the underlying implication is that all 250 must be in the same habitat, which we are directly told they can’t. 70-100 all on the same habitat isn’t enough, so if the total population reaches 250 but 70-100 are together in Florida and the remaining populations are in captivity in other places, then they’re not self-sustaining EVEN THOUGH there’s 250+. Therefore it’s impossible for the current population to reach the desired number if there isn’t more habitat.
This line of thinking has helped me a ton in understanding why mixing the sufficient and the necessary causes problems. It will present itself as a right answer because it technically is something the argument says, but it doesn’t FOLLOW the argument.
The reason I picked C and not B was because B states is claiming that if the population exceeds 250 it will automatically be self sustaining, but the stimulus says that the current habitat is not enough to support any more panthers than the 70-100 currently there. Therefore the panthers but no means can ever exceed 250 in that habitat because it cannot support more than 70 to 100. In addition the sufficiency necessity claims also come into play as even if an extra 150 panthers randomly popped up in the habitat they would die given that their is not enough resources to support them which is the opposite of self sustaining.
I understand that B is confusing sufficient and necessary, which is fundamentally why it is wrong, but I also eliminated it because the rule dictated in the stimulus states "[the Florida panther] population must reach at least 250 in order to be self sustaining" while answer B states, "If the population of Florida panthers ever exceeds 250, it will be self-sustaining". What made me detect this answer as wrong (before actually considering the sufficient-necessary inversion), is the difference between reaching at least 250 to be self-sustaining and exceeding 250 to be self sustaining.
Let's imagine that, for Answer B, the sufficient and necessary weren't inverted and that Answer B instead read as follows: "If the population of Florida panthers ever becomes self-sustaining, its population has exceeded 250".
In Lawgic, such an inverted (corrected) Answer B would be:
SS --> 250+
Since the stimulus mentions that the population must only be at least 250, not necessarily exceed 250, doesn't the stimulus Lawgic actually require "greater or equal to 250", not "more than 250" as JY indicated above? I understand the stimulus Lawgic should actually be:
SS --> 250≥
If this is the case, Answer B is not only wrong because the sufficient and necessary are confused, but also because self sustenance would require even just 250 panthers, not necessarily an excess of or more than 250 panthers.
With this in mind, I would notate (a corrected sufficient-necessary) Answer B as follows if I wanted to check its validity:
(FP = Florida panthers)
SS --> FP^250≥
------------
SS --> FP^250+
Not valid.
Any feedback, confirmation, or explanation as to why this is wrong, would be very appreciated!
I was able to POE down to B and C. I ended up choosing B (i see now why it's wrong, I'm just going to keep falling for that trick), but the reason I opted not to go for C, was because I over-thought it, I guess. I figured it's not really necessary for them to obtain a larger habitat, what if they just obtain an additional, or secondary habitat. Couldn't that yield the same result? As such, I saw C as strongly supported, but not necessarily MBT. Tricky...
@tswalker83 The reason I chose B was because I didn't know what to do with the "must" and the "if". So by default, I went with the "if" and switched the suff. and nec. conditions. Of course, that throws off the entire argument. Soooo, I guess my learning moment was the "must" and "if" in the same sentence = generally "must" takes precedence?
@CaptivatingKindlyPresident I get really confused when I try to default to the set of rules or indicator groups 7sage teaches. Instead, I use the meaning of the words. In this case, "must" means "requires", which is the same as "necessary". So reaching a population of at least 250 is a necessary condition for a self-sustaining population. In other words, if the population is self-sustaining, then we know that the population is at least 250. However, just because the population is at least 250, we cannot assume that it is self-sustaining - that is confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions.
So, I approached it a bit differently and I’m not sure if this is still valid. I wrote: If self-sustaining → 250+ → not current habitat.
I still arrived at the same conclusion, since negating "current habitat" is logically equivalent to "acquiring a larger habitat." "Acquiring a larger habitat" could mean expanding the existing one—making it different from its current state—or it could mean moving to a completely separate habitat that still meets the 250+ requirement. Does that interpretation also hold up or is this exam just making me lose my mind?
One thing that I noticed - and please correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that besides the fact that B is an example of "the oldest mistake in the book," meaning that it reverses the conditional relationship making it look like if 250+ population → SS, it also wrongfully uses "exceeds 250" since the stimulus clearly states that SS → at least 250 (meaning, a population of 250 or more). So even if this option was re-written to indicate the right conditional relationship, if it did not replace "exceeds 250" with "at least 250" or "250 or more" it would still be wrong because it would say "if the population of panthers is ever SS it exceeded 250" which can be translated to SS → 250+ - which is different from what the stimulus says (SS → at least 250)
That wouldn't be the case though, because if "250 or more" was a sufficient condition for SS, then "exceeds 250" would also be contained within "250 or more" it's contained right there in the "or more" part, so "250 or more" contains both conditionals.
I get lost just trying to translate this stuff into Lawgic without writing it down. We won't have a notes box or scrap paper for the test, right? I just don't see how I could possibly chain these conditionals together in my head in 90 seconds without a way to keep track of them visually...any advice?
you do get scratch paper, but for questions that are easier/early in the test it is best for you to eventually do it in your head. if you're early in your studying, do not worry about timing, just worry about accuracy for now. you will eventually be able to easily answer this question.
huh, interesting. i guess it would just be more helpful to see it in the video than to have to do that but its better than not having it at all. thanks.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
105 comments
bro I thought the Florida Panthers were just a hockey team
Please, as someone who was confused on Sufficient and Necessary, just practice that until it is engrained in your brain, until it feels intuitive what is necessary and what is sufficient.
Personally, for weeks, I would go about my day and just make up random conditionals about the moment.
"If I see the library in front of me, I am on the south side of campus. It is necessary for me to be on the south side of campus to see the library. If I see the library, it is sufficient to say I am on the south side of campus. If I am not on the south side of campus, I cannot see the library.......etc etc etc" Do this whenever you have free time to think/brainrot, at least just a couple times per day. It really helps the understanding.
Very strange question can someone explain it to me? I feel like this is extremely poorly worded because what if the current size of the Florida panthers habitat is lets say 5,000 square feet. C) says unless larger habitat, their population will not be self-sustaining. What if we increase their habitat by 1 square foot? We just increased their habitat to be larger but it made no functional difference to their habitat thereby rendering C incorrect. X + Y, where Y > 0 but this is seems untrue? Maybe im doing too much
@ChrisBos I think you are confusing sufficient and necessary. A self-sustaining population REQUIRES a larger habitat (SS -> LH) or contra (/LH -> /SS). Increasing the habitat alone is not enough to guarantee a self-sustaining panther population (as you noted with your 1 square foot example). Whereas the existence of a self-sustaining panther population IS ENOUGH to guarantee that the habitat increased in size. "Larger habitat" is never on the left side of the conditional arrow, therefore larger habitat does not trigger any necessary conditions (because it is a necessary condition itself). All we know is what happens if the population is self-sustaining (SS) and what happens if the habitat is NOT larger (/LH).
I think interpreting the last sentence as:
more panthers (250+)--->increase habitat
did not seem like something I would have worked out on my own.
When I tried to rationalize it for my self, I took note of the "any" as a Group 1 sufficient condition indicator, and qualified "more of these animals" AKA more panthers as the sufficient condition. And then understood it as there can NOT be any more of these animals, turning it into /more panthers
Then, I translated "their current habitat is NOT large enough as /current habitat
So for me it looked like: /more panthers--->/current habitat.
However I'd have to look back at the stimulus when hunting for the answer to understand that by /current habitat, I meant a habitat that is large enough.
It's definitely clunky but I'm struggling to naturally come to the video's way of interpreting that last sentence.
A---->B; B---->A = Mistaken Reversal
If coffee, I will feel energetic, if energetic I will have coffee. No dice. Mistaken Reversal.
I'm intuitively able to come to the correct answer every time for these types of questions without having to create a conditional chain. Should I be mastering drawing out the chains regardless of my ability to use intuition to solve these MBT questions? I feel like I always take a long time to map out the chains, much longer than I will get per question on a real exam.
@Shawndeo5 I honestly feel the exact same... I haven't been drawing out the lawgic but I am consistently getting these correct. Not only the MBTs, but the other question types as well. If we're intuitively doing well, should we even bother with the maps? Someone please let us know!
@AlexZelaya234 I would still do them in blind review to reaffirm you know why you're getting the correct answer. You could run into harder questions on the actual test, and that's when mapping will come in really handy.
soooooooo... this ISN'T about the hockey team?
why are you assuming that you have to increase the habitat? what if experts put them in a controlled, enclosed space to help breed more panthers (250+), but it isn't their original habitat?
@ktacklesthelsat also, there was a question similar to this where i did assume that the animals were to stay in their own habitat, but it was wrong and the explanation warned of not assuming these kinds of things
@ktacklesthelsat or what if their habitat was bigger but unsustainable and didn't have food or water and had predators?
@ktacklesthelsat its not really an assumption though. It is an extension of the conditional logic since we are given that:
self sustaining --> 250+ panthers
BUT the current conditions of their habitat tells us that:
if habitat is not increased --> not 250+ panthers.
SO:
if it is to be self sustaining, then there must be 250+ panthers, and if there are to be 250+ panthers their habitat must increase.
Also, though, through process of elimination you will find that none of the other answer choices are correct.
@ktacklesthelsat Remember that everything in this stim is being presented as fact. It's a fact that their current isn't large enough to support more than 70-100 panthers. Therefore, if they're going to reach the numbers sufficient to be self sustaining, they necessitate a habitat that is large enough to support them.
@ktacklesthelsat as Ryan mentioned you must take everything as a fact. Here we know you cannot have more than 70-100. It isn’t a suggestion. It is a fact.
Think of this analogy:
You and your friend both weigh exactly 150 lbs and are planning on sitting on the same couch. The couch cannot withstand anything over 300 lbs.
if you take everything here to be a fact, what must be true is you cannot add another body or even an extra lb as 300 is the limit given. Anything over 300 would result in a broken couch or an extension to the fact making the fact no longer a fact. If you have 301 lbs on it then the weight limit is obviously not 300 anymore.
Within the stimulus you know 70-100 is the limit given and if you add simply 250 then the limit is no longer 70-100. (You disproved it by adding 250 when the limit is supposed to bWhich means you didn’t take that fact as a fact. B seems tempting and what the LSAT tried to do here is catch those off guard who are working too fast + relying on indicators. What I mean here is one may have seen 250 and self sustaining (both facts of the premise) and said “oh that’s good!” When in fact it disregarded one fact! It took one fact as false (the limit), but 2 as true (exceeding 250 and being self sustaining). This is why it’s important to not rush and take everything in carefully
@ktacklesthelsat For questions like MBT, you take the stimulus at face value. You start assuming, you end up with the wrong answer. Anchor to the stimulus and look there and ONLY there for support.
@goodluckonthelsatguys thank you, this helped
as someone that struggles with formal logic & struggles with finding the contrapositive on the spot and probably would've chose B as an answer, is a good way to also think about this type of question is by saying to myself that B is not a good answer because its not really inferring anything but rather just repeating whats explicitly stated.
@NakimRyan Maybe jump back to the conditional logic lessons. I found that it helped to remember that the sufficient condition will ALWAYS be on the left side of the equation and you can only read these equations from left to right.
We also know that "if" signals a sufficient condition.
when you see that answer choice B starts with "if the population exceeds 250+"
(250+ --> self sustaining)
you can automatically eliminate that answer choice because our equation from the stimulus doesn't start with that. our equation starts with "if it is to be self-sustaining"
(self sustaining --> 250+)
OR
(/250+ --> /self sustaining)
Now, if answer choice B started with a contrapositive to our equation like "if the population doesn't exceed 250," then we could consider it since it gives us a valid starting point
(/250+ --> /self sustaining)
hope this helps!
Saw the title of the lesson and thought we'd be talking about the hockey team lol
But ... I'm learning!
Had a lot of trouble with this one ... conditional logic is not my strong suit!
Hmm ... what if we found a way to genetically modify panthers to adapt to a this current habitat? The stimulus does not necessarily demand that the current habitat be made larger, the stimulus leaves open other possibilities no matter how unlikely. Therefore, C would not qualify as MBT?
Just speculating - it is clear that C is incorrect via POE.
@thatdmstroh28 yes, but that's not a very reasonable assumption to make.
The frustrating part of the answer choice of "oldest mistake in the book" is that technically B is correct, if 250 or more than self-sustaining. BUT that doesn’t follow with what the ENTIRE stimulus says.
The stimulus says that current habitat is holding 70-100 and can't support more. 250 would mean self-sustaining, but the underlying implication is that all 250 must be in the same habitat, which we are directly told they can’t. 70-100 all on the same habitat isn’t enough, so if the total population reaches 250 but 70-100 are together in Florida and the remaining populations are in captivity in other places, then they’re not self-sustaining EVEN THOUGH there’s 250+. Therefore it’s impossible for the current population to reach the desired number if there isn’t more habitat.
This line of thinking has helped me a ton in understanding why mixing the sufficient and the necessary causes problems. It will present itself as a right answer because it technically is something the argument says, but it doesn’t FOLLOW the argument.
The reason I picked C and not B was because B states is claiming that if the population exceeds 250 it will automatically be self sustaining, but the stimulus says that the current habitat is not enough to support any more panthers than the 70-100 currently there. Therefore the panthers but no means can ever exceed 250 in that habitat because it cannot support more than 70 to 100. In addition the sufficiency necessity claims also come into play as even if an extra 150 panthers randomly popped up in the habitat they would die given that their is not enough resources to support them which is the opposite of self sustaining.
#feedback
I understand that B is confusing sufficient and necessary, which is fundamentally why it is wrong, but I also eliminated it because the rule dictated in the stimulus states "[the Florida panther] population must reach at least 250 in order to be self sustaining" while answer B states, "If the population of Florida panthers ever exceeds 250, it will be self-sustaining". What made me detect this answer as wrong (before actually considering the sufficient-necessary inversion), is the difference between reaching at least 250 to be self-sustaining and exceeding 250 to be self sustaining.
Let's imagine that, for Answer B, the sufficient and necessary weren't inverted and that Answer B instead read as follows: "If the population of Florida panthers ever becomes self-sustaining, its population has exceeded 250".
In Lawgic, such an inverted (corrected) Answer B would be:
SS --> 250+
Since the stimulus mentions that the population must only be at least 250, not necessarily exceed 250, doesn't the stimulus Lawgic actually require "greater or equal to 250", not "more than 250" as JY indicated above? I understand the stimulus Lawgic should actually be:
SS --> 250≥
If this is the case, Answer B is not only wrong because the sufficient and necessary are confused, but also because self sustenance would require even just 250 panthers, not necessarily an excess of or more than 250 panthers.
With this in mind, I would notate (a corrected sufficient-necessary) Answer B as follows if I wanted to check its validity:
(FP = Florida panthers)
SS --> FP^250≥
------------
SS --> FP^250+
Not valid.
Any feedback, confirmation, or explanation as to why this is wrong, would be very appreciated!
@elw2147 this is also why I didn’t pick C but I do think it’s good to keep in mind how they will throw necessary vs assumption answers
go cats go
I was able to POE down to B and C. I ended up choosing B (i see now why it's wrong, I'm just going to keep falling for that trick), but the reason I opted not to go for C, was because I over-thought it, I guess. I figured it's not really necessary for them to obtain a larger habitat, what if they just obtain an additional, or secondary habitat. Couldn't that yield the same result? As such, I saw C as strongly supported, but not necessarily MBT. Tricky...
Yeah I did the same thing, B is a bitch of an answer
@tswalker83 The reason I chose B was because I didn't know what to do with the "must" and the "if". So by default, I went with the "if" and switched the suff. and nec. conditions. Of course, that throws off the entire argument. Soooo, I guess my learning moment was the "must" and "if" in the same sentence = generally "must" takes precedence?
@CaptivatingKindlyPresident I get really confused when I try to default to the set of rules or indicator groups 7sage teaches. Instead, I use the meaning of the words. In this case, "must" means "requires", which is the same as "necessary". So reaching a population of at least 250 is a necessary condition for a self-sustaining population. In other words, if the population is self-sustaining, then we know that the population is at least 250. However, just because the population is at least 250, we cannot assume that it is self-sustaining - that is confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions.
So, I approached it a bit differently and I’m not sure if this is still valid. I wrote: If self-sustaining → 250+ → not current habitat.
I still arrived at the same conclusion, since negating "current habitat" is logically equivalent to "acquiring a larger habitat." "Acquiring a larger habitat" could mean expanding the existing one—making it different from its current state—or it could mean moving to a completely separate habitat that still meets the 250+ requirement. Does that interpretation also hold up or is this exam just making me lose my mind?
@andycabrera19882 This sounds good to me
The age old question:
What are people down in Florida doing?
I live here and I got no clue
One thing that I noticed - and please correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that besides the fact that B is an example of "the oldest mistake in the book," meaning that it reverses the conditional relationship making it look like if 250+ population → SS, it also wrongfully uses "exceeds 250" since the stimulus clearly states that SS → at least 250 (meaning, a population of 250 or more). So even if this option was re-written to indicate the right conditional relationship, if it did not replace "exceeds 250" with "at least 250" or "250 or more" it would still be wrong because it would say "if the population of panthers is ever SS it exceeded 250" which can be translated to SS → 250+ - which is different from what the stimulus says (SS → at least 250)
#feedback interesting! curious if LSAT ever penalizes you for misunderstanding greater than and greater or equal to
That wouldn't be the case though, because if "250 or more" was a sufficient condition for SS, then "exceeds 250" would also be contained within "250 or more" it's contained right there in the "or more" part, so "250 or more" contains both conditionals.
B is super tricky
I get lost just trying to translate this stuff into Lawgic without writing it down. We won't have a notes box or scrap paper for the test, right? I just don't see how I could possibly chain these conditionals together in my head in 90 seconds without a way to keep track of them visually...any advice?
you do get scratch paper, but for questions that are easier/early in the test it is best for you to eventually do it in your head. if you're early in your studying, do not worry about timing, just worry about accuracy for now. you will eventually be able to easily answer this question.
#feedback I wish you guys wouldn't block off the answer choices so we can at least try on our own and then work together.
Click on the "quick view" button at the top
huh, interesting. i guess it would just be more helpful to see it in the video than to have to do that but its better than not having it at all. thanks.
OH MY GOD FINALLY!