I always give the language of the Answer choices the benefit of the doubt, need to be more critical of weird wording like in E.

i must say that the definition of merit as a pro and con was not at all how I understood it to mean. That was surprisingly helpful because I had a hard time differentiating between C and D

i got this one right, but this was not a level one difficulty lol

@rjon27 Very helpful thank you.

Heres how I understand A to be wrong even though I picked it:

A wrong because the premises jump from people in the past to people today. The jump and the continuity in B is the assumption that the argument requires. If its not easier for people today than it was thousands of years ago to domesticate then it explains why the conclusion is that undomesitcated animals are either difficult or not worth it.

A sounds really good and is super helpful for the argument but if it werent true it wouldnt change anything the argument is saying

Isnt A just a restatement of the conclusion. Only reason wht I didnt pick it. The question asks what is to be inferred, so i assumed we are looking for something that the author assumes about Mr. Sandstrom

Hi Ryan, please message me asw!

@MarcusTsang My plan is to create a quizlet and drill myself on all of this. thanks for your reply

@KevinLin thank you.

how are we supposed to distinguish between answers that restate evidence (that are incorrect) and then answers that restate the passage that are correct? Can that be inferred from the question type?

what does expresses the conclusion drawn by the argument as a whole even mean? Thats what tripped me up i knew it was between C and D, but wasn't sure if we were supposed to incorporate evidence because it says as a whole. Had it just said conclusion i would have easily picked C. I realize now that D is an assumption, but nonetheless, the question wording ive noticed in unnecessarily difficult as if the stimulus isnt already difficult enough smh.

I understand how most and some can mean all, but my concern is this: one common trap on the lsat is 'beyond the scope of the argument', which often includes statements that cant be inferred from the text. Often the indicator is that it will say "all" or make an incorrect overgeneralization. How would understanding some and most in this way help at all with the lsat?

@ColeCavanaugh thanks

i get how some can mean all, but how does this help with lsat questions. I feel like from my limited experience, rarely are lsat answers with 'All' correct because they are too extreme.

@LuisAllen couldnt agree more. i have no idea what they are saying. The reality is we have never looked at anything like this before. It almost seems like they are making it into some sort of strange formula and its counter-intuitive to how a normal person reads

im confused you say pick either idea and make it necessary condition. I figured that in conditional logic, the hardest part was confusing sufficent with necessary clause. How can we just pick either idea, when one is the sufficient (trigger) from a nesseary result?