@LevinKin7sageLSATDESTROYER Thanks man, I will try it out. Any tips? I feel that I really suffer from SA and NA questions, and in general, take too much time on them.

@CharChar3 lol same, especially since I'm from Canada

I thought of it as

P: A or B

P: ~A

Conclusion: B

It is essentially saying either you're red or blue, you're not blue, therefore you're red.

I found this easier to comprehend, and it is also logically equivalent to what the lesson wrote (~A --> B)

But in my case, I guess it also accounts for

~B --> A

This could be an easier way to understand this/map it out.

@Nickgigs The conclusion of the argument is saying "people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good."

so lets say rely on the web --(likely)-> more harm than good

E is saying, "People attempting to diagnose their medical conditions will do themselves more harm than good only if they rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information."

Only if is what makes it a necessary indicator, so it would be:

more harm than good --> rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information. (or in other words rely on web)

Does this help?

Essentially the actual conclusion is A is likely for B

E) is saying, B --> A

@Dami Oyatayo I think it suggests BR if you take too long. Also, when doing BR even if it gives me the flag, I will still pick the answer that I find to be most reasonable when taking my time, even if its the same answer.

@mchoekstra1134 58 :)

@KennedyW Almost half can not mean anything over 50%, if that were the case, lets say for example I said, "My test score was almost half of 100" but when you look at my test score it was actually 60. Or in your case lets say 52. It still would not be the case, I would have to say I got slightly over half in order for it to make sense. Let me know if this helps clear it up.

@mkittrell

To buy an older car, you must be able to drive stick.

Must indicates necessary, so the argument is:

To buy an older car --> Able to drive stick.

Therefore, if you can drive stick you've driven older cars.

Therefore indicates conclusion, this is the conclusion of the argument.

If indicates sufficient. The argument is as follows:

Able to drive stick --> Have driven an older car

Overall arguement:

To buy an older car --> Able to drive stick.

Able to drive stick --> Have driven an older car

If easier to understand

A --> B

B --> C

This is invalid, but not for the reasons I think you meant it to be.

I think you should have said in the conclusion

"Therefore, if you can drive stick, you've bought an older car.

Does this make sense?

@AlexSher Yes I think you are right, even when you click the answer under question 3 itself, it does not negate it like he did. I wrote ~FS --> GRI (No freedom speech, then government respond irrationally.)