fr, I told myself before clicking the check mark that if this is wrong... then f the LSAT

real

I thought you could not draw any valid inferences from an all statement that comes before a "most" or "some" statement??

this helps so much--thank you!

yeah, I was going to say...I've heard some of these examples elsewhere.

I think it would be very helpful to keep "not just for its investment value" in the diagramming to show how it works and what reasoning you should have to keep it included. Or should it just not be included in the diagramming at all?

#help

I think the reason I got confused and picked B was because I kept "not just as a value to an investment" in my diagramming. Making the contrapositive that she would be seeking value for an investment. My reasoning was that if she is seeking value to an investment, then she must care of its value in the future. Which is what B represents-- that she is not sure that it will appreciate in value. Wouldn't this trigger the sufficient that if she cares for an investment she should not buy? I would consider kicking it out entirely to simply and not get confused but I feel like that will lead me to start kicking out information in the future that could actually be beneficial. Where is my reasoning wrong on answer choice B?

P.S. I see why E is correct in that it is a "most supports" and not a "must support" and triggers one of the negated sufficient conditions. However, B seems to also trigger one of my sufficient conditions (unless I'm incorrect in this)?

conditional logic is so fun!!

fr they might get rid of these type of questions too one day...

A --> B

A

Therefore, B

vs

A --> B

C --> A

Therefore, C --> B

I think if you stay dedicated to your LSAT studies and your stats are looking really good you should go for it.

I did the same with putting "non interglacial periods" and "interglacial periods."

I also had trouble identifying the A v. B I think because this one was tricky and was worded backwards.

You know what the overall circle is based on the noun in the sentence. The adjectives or modifiers are the smaller circles that are being specific on the noun.

For question 5 I took the conclusion to be broken up but still contain the same meaning. For example, "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution....they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately." It's the same opinion just sparse.

it mentions the scientists conclusions, but not the author's conclusion

Disney Vacation club has strong wording. For example, "All others," "he has never," "he must have," are pretty strong. They are algorithmic in the way they are set as well. The second argument could be stronger if it stated that tigers will cause injuries instead of "can." And the fat cat argument isn't as strong because there are so many other possibilities that could've lead to the situation and so much detail/support left out that could've made it stronger.