This makes sense, but it also leaves another question unanswered which is what caused the water to freeze if the Earth was trapping all of that heat. It leaves us with a bigger question. While I know this isn't what we are trying to resolve, it does annoy me A LOT.

Thank you for your response! It's wonderful that I had totally forgotten about this question. After 3 months of practice I looked at the ACs and immediately knew it was C. Hard work pays off.

Hi! I'm in the same boat. Picked D and then E in BR. I think the word "unwarranted" in E is what makes it wrong because the suspicions may or may not be unwarranted according to the author. What he is truly getting at is that it is more likely to be a coincidence than not, rather than if the suspicions are warranted or not.

Another reason why I noticed D was wrong is that the conclusion states that the size of the nucleus determines whether or not male cats can contract disease X. In D, 5 dead cats had a large interstitial nuclei, but could have died before they could contract disease X. It is possible that they died of other reasons but had a nuclei big enough to contract disease X, they just didn't get around to it. So it is in line with the argument.

Thank you for reaffirming my thoughts about this passage lol

Same thing happens to me. I think it is a question of confidence and stamina when the clock is ticking. Try to slow your mind down by reading a bit slower that way you can process the stimulus much better. I am assuming you are getting them correct in BR later.

I wish you could give a better explanation for D. #feedback

I also think that D doesn't change the argument because the premise that the AI made more correct diagnoses still stands.

#feedback please start putting the ACs in the video from the beginning. Or else we are losing a critical half of the learning experience with these questions.

I should probably review the lesson about quantifiers and mapping them out in lawgic.

Anyway, can someone please explain why this premise is mapped out like this:

friend —m→ feel-comfy-appro

I would've thought that the "because" was a sufficient indicator. Very confused.

Can you explain this using an example. I think this might be very helpful for me and others. Thanks in advance! #help #feedback

If you wanted to make the first sentence a conditional in logic, how would you do it?

phoenix→/cartwright?

or /cartright→phoenix?

I have a feeling it is the second, but can anyone confirm?

pls #help

I would say so because think of the basic definition of a premise: something that offers support to something else.

That's evidence

conclusion is something that is being supported by something else. Evidence would not apply here, since evidence by nature is not the conclusion, but rather could offer so much support that it validates a conclusion

#feedback #help When JY says he doesn't care about an answer choice, it would be nice if he could explain his reasoning. For instance, C mentions both influence and neural connections just like E. Why is C wrong?

#help

Hello, can you provide a link to the lesson(s) that show us how to understand the following better:

I am having trouble with understanding why JY translated the premise regarding Samantha as Sam (M)→ /finger and /foot

I get that "avoided" means you negate both foot and finger but why do you change the sign to "and" rather than "or". Following demorgan's law wouldn't you also have to switch sides to the sufficient assumption

The way the LSAT writers wrote it makes you think that would be true. However if you translated to logic, you can see that you are not allowed to say that must be true. Answer B suggests Fish AND bird → /Gerbil.

However, in our translation of the stimulus we had this translation: Fish AND /Bird→Gerbil

This arrow in the stimulus' translation shows us why we could not say the statement in answer B must be true. That is because the stimulus can only tell us what must be true about fish and bird when they do sell Gerbils, not when you they do not. Always follow the arrow my friend.

Hello Diana, I assume it is still unavailable, if not could you send a link, please.

I was also hung up on this assumptions. But I guess this is one of those reasonable assumptions we have to make from the stim: original films are considered old movies

I think it would be that some things that are grey have spots. Not necessarily cats. But I could be wrong. Can anyone confirm?

Hello, Mary! It would be great if in this lessons and the previous ones the terms for logic were representative of the statements, not just A and B. I've seen several people comment this. Thanks!

Your example is wrong. It would be

All (A) Cats (B) are mammals.

X is not a mammal, TF X is not a cat

I think there might be a spelling error that tripped me up. is it supposed to be "that's between"because that between sounds wrong or incomplete. #feedback #help

#feedback ^^

I think this is the easiest way of understanding it for me JY. But I appreciate having several options.

^agreed I understood that we could only kick up things in the sufficient condition. Hmmm