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

@OliverJakacki Well, flipping it means that we'd just refer to its lower boundary. The overlap between some and most occurs from (Half +1) and beyond. You can only ever operate under the requirements of the more restrictive term.

So, if you were to flip "most," which I assume means that you want to say (half, or half -1), then does that mean some? Well, yes, unless (half or half-1) isn't (at least one), which can never be the case.

*Even if the set comprises 2 things, the flip of most would rightly adapt to that scale, wherein (half -1) is more like (half -0.5) or something, unless the stim deals in whole numbers still, in which case (half -1) yields a 0, and a 0 cannot be at least 1.

To be honest. Just use your domains and, if necessary, embeddeds. Then go notate as usual.

Definitions are usually uncontested, unless they obviously aren't, in which case, you would know because the question would be about the definition.

Anyways, kick the definition up to the Domain, and then you get If believe and If aware of high prob., Then established.

@Alex_Ram Also, if you're wondering how I segmented things. I chunked Psy, moral, social, or infant tears into "Psy," since the Whether or not applied to that bunch. I recognized Physically Benign as NOT Physically dangerous, "/PD," because thats what benign means.

Here's the simplest solution:

1. "To be horrific, a monster must be threatening."

H > T

2. "Whether or not it presents psychological, moral, or social dangers, or triggers enduring infantile fears, if a monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening."

Psy or /Psy and PD > T

Is Psy or /Psy contested? Does its inclusion matter to the conditional? If NO, then kick it up to the Doman. "2." then becomes:

PD > T

3. "In fact, even a physically benign monster is horrific if it inspires revulsion."

/PD and R > H

Final:

/PD and R > H > T

/PD and R > T

Of course, we've dismissed the domain for clarity, but the Author doesn't need to, so, if necessary, the answers can pay their respects to that Domain if they'd like, but the notation is really the only factor. (E) is right, whether it said "All monsters that are not physically dangerous, but that are psychologically dangerous and inspire revulsion, are threatening," OR "All monsters that are not physically dangerous and not psychologically dangerous, but inspire revulsion, are threatening."

3/3. Took me an hour. 😋

@123rhealanba673 I don't know about taking notes, but its worth practicing these things until its second nature. By the time you've done most of this, I'd wager to guess that you were working on a Q that you flagged and returned to later.

Also, its really overblown how long this stuff takes when you have it down. It just feels that way because time crunches make "strategies" feel riskier and more time consuming.

I really struggled with why I was wrong on Q5, but after 2 hours of debate, I get it.

Answer (C) is basically a necessary assumption, and it has to have been "most supported," even though most supported usually corresponds to a resultant inference rather than an inherent one.

@CyndelDalzon552 This is a concern, but its not your problem. Your mistake was most likely that you didn't recognize bilateral symmetry as a member within a subset/superset. I think I can make things easier for you:

Notate the obvious conditional first, even if its the last sentence of the stim.

BS^/A>BS^/C

Now, if you found instead wrote

/BSA>/BSC

You'd still be able to match that to answer (C). Doing it this way gives you a quick and accessible anchor point to refer to, like a north star for when you get lost. Mapping out the rest from there is far easier, because you know Premises will be true and thus they never mistakenly reverse or negate. If you have to guess for whatever reason, you can just find the anchor's match in an answer choice, and rest assured that you had at least a 50/50 shot at being right.