Hey, I'm in the bay (Marin side) but happy to meet up or virtually study. Prepping for April LSAT.

WOW. So, I studied on my own for the first LSAT I did and always saw this notation but constantly messed it up because I didn't know that the arrow itself had this rule. This is such a big clarity moment.

CRAZY

What helps me is to think of it like this:

An valid or invalid argument depends on the STRUCTURE of the argument!

So: If A then B. X is A. Therefore, X is B. (Valid)

But: If A then B. X is C. Therefore, X is A. (invalid) -- this is invalid because we don't know the relationship between C and A.

If this same argument read like:

If A then B. If C then also A. X is C. Therefore, X is A. (it becomes valid)

because of the structure. I try to avoid the word "truth" all together:

If a person is a boy (if A), then the person is a bottle of lotion (then B). If one smells like vanilla (if C) then one is also a boy (then also A). Samantha smells like vanilla (X is a member of C), therefore Samantha is a boy. (X is A).

Technically, this is a valid argument...but far from the truth. But the structure allows for the conclusion to logically follow the premises.

@gianna bolla Right! I'm glad someone caught the reference!

@Kalynn Briles Yeah! I felt the same way. I just knew it was a premise and premises add support. The alternative is based on the (smallest) distinction between the private funding and the public funding.

Because private won't do ... , public funds should be used.

All front row volleyball players are tall. Harper Murray is a front row volleyball player. Therefore, Harper is tall. All front row volleyball players block at the net. Thus, Harper must also block at the net.

@Chex

Attempting to help (but here is the best way I can describe it):

Remembering the definition of an argument helps me:

An argument is a persuasive set of claims that consists of at least one premise that supports at least one conclusion. The relationship within an argument—that of support—is the most important relationship on the test.

If the conclusion read: "Walt has probably never been to the Magical Kingdom," Then there are still premises that support the conclusion; but the relationship of the support to the conclusion is weak and/or flawed; the argument would be invalid.

If "Walt has probably never been to the Magical Kingdom," was the conclusion then the LSAT would test why the relationship of support to the question is flawed. The question-stem type would most likely change from Must be true to a strengthen/weaken (which of the following strengthens the argument) or other ID the flaw (which of the following best explains the flaw in this argument).