I really hate how JY trashes the wrong answer choices. People thought those questions were right and here you are trashing them

Cool. So what happens if we say "If turtle, then ninja. Plato is not a turtle."

We could only say that Plato is not a turtle. We couldn't say anything else, whether Plato is a ninja, etc. We don't have enough information.

Do questions like this come up on the LSAT?

See, here's the thing though. You tell us not to conflate "lack of rain" with "below average", but expect us to conflate "lack of rain" with "drought"? In the same way we don't know what level "below average" is, we also don't know what "drought" is. Sure, you can say that a drought is more defined, but this is literally a bullshit game of semantics at this point.

I keep getting all this shit wrong. fucking sucks

The reason I chose E instead of A was because of the word "WE". Does "WE" refer to humans? or just the general idea that action should be taken? I took the latter idea, and chose E based off of that. Why should I believe that "WE" means humans? Maybe it's the obvious choice, but I want it derived.

#help

oh okay, so in THIS question the strength of the analogy matters, but in the previous module the focus solely mattered on the conclusion, and not on the analogy.

JY LOVES to make rules convenient to different questions. What a waste of time 7sage is.

I think "can't therefore don't" should be a lesson by itself. That's really important here.

I also (in my prescriptive opinion) think this question starts to move outside the scope. of what is actually being tested for with the information on pheromones

I wanted to put this here for anyone having trouble with #4, specifically with the subject of "formation" vs. "hurricanes".

As people, we intuitively see what word seems more like a noun between these two. It's hurricanes. We see "formation" as a verb more, because think about it... hurricanes form. It makes less intutive sense for "formation" to be the noun.

However, when you think about "formation" not as the action "i.e. hurricanes form" and instead as the presence of the hurricane itself (the "structure" of a hurricane) it makes a lot more sense. The structure of what? the hurricane.

The difficulty in this question came down to identifying verbs that have turned into nouns as the subject. But I'm sure this is a big thing that's important to master.

So this is interesting. Could we not say that for the above argument (listed below):

A → B

A —m→ C

B ←s→ C

could we not say instead that MOST B's are C's?

ACB

ACB

ACB

AB

AB

I've thought about these questions that ask for main conclusion like this. After I read the entire thing, I make a sentence starting with "Therefore...", and that helps me a lot to really get to what the passage is saying. Can anyone spot any problems with this approach? Or is it sound?

What got me on this question was not my conditional thinking, but literally the language of the answer choices. I need a module on how to read and pick apart the language that the LSAT makers use to make answer choices difficult/more(or less) appealing.