i definitely see the value of lawgic, but i find it sooo unintuitive so i feel like it slows me down, so i can't imagine actually using it. but i feel like maybe just in studying, it's enough, because it's training you to think in the way that the test needs.

CLAIM!!!!

My understanding is that C is more relevant than D. The stimulus mentions sweets and candies, not physical exercise. So it's just more logically what will complete the sentence.

i agree, it helps me see how the concepts actually apply to the LSAT!

i'm not sure if it's related to the new lsat structure; i think it's just meant to further our understanding of the notation and translating into logic which imo is applicable to the entire test. at the same time, i'm finding that a lot of these lessons without vids are pretty intuitive, so i don't take notes or anything and just read through quickly.

it helps me to also think in terms of visual language! i don't really like depending on the indicators because of the overinclusive/underinclusive thing.

out of all the oral myths that survive, there cannot be some oral myths that survive that were NOT written down. so if we picture the superset as oral myths that survive with a subset of those that written, it doesn't make sense because it implies that there is some way to have an oral myth survive without it having been written down. hence, it has to be the other way around with "written" being the big circle and "survive" being smaller. so "written" is the necessary condition, and "oral myths surviving" is sufficient.

thats what i was thinking..

ok nvm i get it

some cultivars of corn are more related to sorghum than they are related to most other cultivars.

some cultivars are more related to sorghum.

some cultivars are less related to most other cultivars.

sorghum vs. most other cultivars on the quality of how morphologically related they are to some cultivars.

I keep seeing people attempt the corn example from the last video, and it seems like everyone identifies A and B as sorghum vs. other corn, but I'm a bit confused. This is how I would do it.

Sentence: Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than to most other cultivars of corn.

1. A: some cultivars of corn vs. B: most other cultivars of corn

2. Quality: how morphologically similar to sorghum

3. "Some cultivars of corn" is the winner

Did I go wrong? If so, where?