yo mama is [B] from [A], yo mama is also [B] to [C].

A>B>C

I misread "they" as referring to the courts rather than the "people engaging..." RIP

My eyes are glazing over. ngl.

I made some careless mistakes early on that I'll accept. I think my main issue was that I just couldn't keep track of my Low Res. I'd need to write it down.

Also, that second passage didn't feel like critique or debate. It felt like a spotlight.

I wonder what Weiner would say about the fact these fellas are all fitted up

Damnit weiner, this is the last time you'll try to overpower me!

That's outrageous lol. No way that's actually what happened. The Playwright dies theatrically? He may also have been the father of Irony.

Are y'all jotting the low res summaries down or keeping it native to your memory bank?

My brain is having trouble treating this stuff as seriously as LR foundations.

Apparently, I've only had free trial english so far.

But, "Nah" is your answer, right?

Kevin was foreshadowed to the point his aura is nigh infinite

I have a question. I'm coming back to this after completing the module to see if anything I learned helps me with this question. My question pertains to whether the following insight is infallible as a strategy:

Iron rich diets -c> Parkinsons.

(A) Genetics -c> /Iron rich diets.

So, Genetics -c> Parkinsons is FALSE.

If the above were true, it would've been a viable alternative to the Author's conclusion. We're not here to evalute the correlation. We're here to evaluate the Hypothesis that A -c> B. Since the above relationship is FALSE, we know that it cannot chain up to become an alternate explaination, and so we can rule it out. Obviously, a ruled out alternative strengthens.

Well, yes. That's a good self-rule you're holding over yourself, Livia. I think, just assume for these lessons that the information IS native to the world of the stim. it's all hypothetical anyway, so might as well.

Isn't it impossible to say that all 5's liklihood of developing Parkinsons is equalized, though? Since we know it to be a fact that a Genetic Predisposition means a higher liklihood of getting Parkisons? All the answer tells us is that their iron consumption is equated, and it doesn't tell us whether typical iron consumption is iron-rich or not. So, a genetic predisposition toward Parkinsons is absolutely something that increases one's liklihood of getting parkinsons, but, that in combination with an average iron consumption just doesn't yield any further information aside from the predispositions causal nature (to cause likliness of parkinsons, not necessarily parkinsons).

I still don't get it.

If (A) says that people who are liklier to get Parkison's eat a regular amount of Iron, how does that tell us that eating iron causes parkinsons? Or, how does it not?

I get that genetic predispotion is eliminated as an alt cause, but it was never a cause at all with respect to iron since the answer makes iron consumption negligable. Genetics are a completely unrelated third factor, so we don't know whether "eating no more iron than the next guy" means that the "next guy" does or doesn't have an iron rich diet, since the answer doesn't explain whats typical.

I actually found (A) to be non-support, since it attempts to sever the connection between iron consumption and the liklihood of parkinsons, and does so inconclusively. Like, if we say something unrelated to iron can cause parkinsons, that isn't an alternate causal explaination of the stim's correlation.

I've been there, J.Y.... I, too, confused Draco for being Harry's friend.

I feel like the more pressing matter here is that you've not seen Star Wars (EPs 1-6). Not Only pilots can fly airplanes, brother. Some scruffy looking nerf herders by the name of Han Solo can too.

B > MS

MB = /B

/B > /MS is Valid.

I don't give the MB = /B a conditional form because its just a fact. Like, you COULD, but I'd rather just kick the distinction up into the domain and call them non-birds.

Grown ahh man fallin for the oldest trick in da book.

I find that if you assign numerical values to these things, you can work through any quantifier argument form pretty easily, even if its new.

(Say we have 100 ___, and most are X, so say 60, then does that mean at least 1 Y within the 100 has to be among those 60?, etc.)

Couldn't you just Chunk Some students in Mrs. Stoops class, so it becomes A. Can read proficiently is B. invited is C. So:

A > B

B > C

A > C

Because, if some is enough to be a sub group of all, why would you need to go through the trouble of diagramming quantifiers.

This one is pretty intuitive.

Obviously, "if All Tigers are Mammals, then most Tigers are Mammals." Conversely, if "Most LSAT Takers don't need this lesson at all because this is a basic part of english that I've never had to think about formulaically before, then that doesn't mean ALL don't need it."

If you're getting a headache, basically:

Many = Some+

Overwhelming = Most+

*Not worth it = Soundcloud+

I really only had English Lite installed in my brain until now bruh