Nah this should have been C; C is literally the argument's conclusion. Furthermore, you could separate that conclusion from its evidence and the conclusion would still make sense, given that the scenario the Conservationist is envisioning requires the passage of time for the sanctuary to continue, but as we see with the Pilot, this situation of collisions only becomes more dangerous as time moves forward.

To state that this is a "general principle" regarding all dangerous situations is so erroneous when it is clear that the counter is on the subject of a specific series of phenomena, which have already occurred multiple times and will continue for an unspecified amount of times, even when one such collision will result in passenger injuries. The counter needs to enunciate the conclusion that the author comes to, or it unjustly identifies the premises as being the counter.

On the Topic of A, we cannot conclude that the facts are misleading without recognizing the conclusion the author seeks to make for this argument. The "counter," in this case, is wrong, given that it fails to address the actual argument of the Pilot, which is indicated by the word "so," thereby making A evermore neglectful of the actual position of the pilot.

But God forbid I interpret dangerous situations in the context of the problem.

The sufficient conditions in the answer choice do not line up to the statement originally expressed in the passage. We cannot conclude that if a compromise is reached, then the political leader's side will benefit. we only know that if a compromise is not reached, then the political leader's side will benefit; The contrapositive of which is if the political leader's side will not benefit, then a compromise is reached. and that their side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise with the opposition, which doesn't necessarily mean they will benefit from the outcome of compromising.

(premise 1)

FP --> PC

false (concl.), because (premise 2)

FP --> PF

so PF and PC can't work together given that they both contain the correct sufficient conditions, yet the conclusion contrasts the necessaries with one another.

so the correct assumption should be:

-------------

PC --> /PF

this was a contradictory correct answer; Like why does it enunciate having all of the cattle wear the device, but makes the answer choice pertain to a specific assumption that the cows will follow leaders regardless of this situation and that they wont be deterred primarily by the device instead. Odd that the solution doesn't line up to the evidence. Thought it was supposed to do that.

serious students -most-> happy

serious students -most-> grad school --> overworked

---------------

happy -some-> grad school --> overworked

valid conclusion

real wages --> productivity

Contrapositive of evidence +conclusion: real wages --> tech

assumption: productivity --> tech

contrapositive: /tech --> /productivity

Are there any better ways to remember the Mismatched concepts assumption rule regarding entailment of premises and support, otherwise known in this case as sufficient and necessary conditions?

@jgoogs Jgoogs. Bro. I thought I was the only one who recognized the inconsistent assumptions that tend to get made on these correct answer choices. It's a relief to know that I'm not alone in dealing with the hypocrisy of these questions highkey.

Unfortunately, the answer choice that I selected for this was B initially, given that it has such strong relation to the topic and its issue; But, I was wrong in the sense that the conclusion is a "tends to" conclusion, which doesn't get explained anywhere to my knowledge, but this distinction in wording is extremely important for the types of answer choices that create an absolute conclusion rather than a strong conclusion, yknow?

D is correct because it enunciates the relationship between napping and insomnia as a "possibility" rather than being fully conclusive over the relationship between the concepts, which is how we see it in the stimulus!

Again, confusing, I know. A frequent objection for this outlook might provide that the term "possibility" doesn't line up to the phrase "tends to", but we're thinking in the hypothetical, while also considering how "possibility" and "tending to" are similar on the spectrum of support (think of them almost lining up right above one another on a number line, if it helps). It's implicit, and I'd argue one of the most important factors to keep in mind on these assumption question types.

Furthermore, think of Socrates in Plato's Republic; If we said "all instances", but Socrates prompted originally by enunciating the relationship to be "sometimes yes, sometimes no", which isn't a direct quote, but is similar to his response in a discussion with Cephalus at the beginning of the book, and we agreed to his original distinction prior to making our own, it would make sense for Socrates to ridicule us for making an assumption about the consistency of an event of which we agreed only "sometimes yes, sometimes no" takes place.

Sorry for the ramble here, I just thought this was important!

well just because we know one thing about one group doesn't mean we can conclude another thing about another group.

Fudgepops. E is wrong.

Socrates would have loved the LSAT.

@Stas1973 Doesn't selecting this answer choice require making an assumption about the length of time that the second hypothesis supposes, given it doesn't say any time frame?

5/5 on the first try THIS IS MY FIRST TIME GETTING 5/5 EVER

@WilliamStimpson Wait with the reasoning supplied in your last paragraph wouldn't D be incorrect alongside A?

The stimulus tells us about how much paper product damages the environment, but not necessarily about how the production of any paper product is more harmful to the environment than the equal weight or volume of any plastic product. We simply don't get that comparison, nor that definition of equal weight between the two.

We only know that plastic contributes a smaller proportion than paper, and that the damage to the environment by a given weight or volume of trash in general contributes roughly the same whether it be plastic or paper in the trash. We just can't conclude that paper production is more harmful to the environment, especially when the product has no intrinsic outcome placed within its context and its circumstances of not yet being trash.

I cant agree with the correct answer on this question; the question stem already enunciates the usage of techniques traditional to the area; If we are already making the assumption that reed boats were used to transport the stones across the lake, then it is reasonable to assume the methods traditional to the area are replicated from the original... oh we don't know that do we? Wait oh shucks I assumed the methods traditional to the area were the same methods they used to get the stones across, but that would make the whole experiment unnecessary, given that the people there would probably know how the ancient peoples' transferred heavy rocks over the lake.

what a bum answer bro D should not be correct, given that the circumstances of other marketing campaigns and the company as a whole is outside the scope of the question to begin with. It's an incredibly unreasonable assumption to derive from the premises and conclusion.

I had a whole paragraph written up about how E was right and then I realized the "and" separates two separate sets of people in the answer choice.

A is annoying, as having abandoned a vehicle prior to the owner noticing doesn't entail that thief to be convicted of any crime, nor does it imply as such. A simply says the person wont notice until the crime has already been completed and abandoned, but does not imply that the person has been caught or stopped from doing the crime. It does not explain the stimulus, for the stimulus says, "it is more likely now... that someone who steals a car will be convicted of the crime," which is not what answer choice A says; It simply explains a scenario that cuts off before the owner is even aware of the car being gone. We cant conclude the conviction of a crime in the stimulus when the answer choice does not address, nor implicate the judicial proceedings, legal process, or sentence that must occur in order for a conviction of a car thief to take place.

Thats it. Give me the bar.

@petvma You're gonna get it bro, I got 3/5 on the first and then 5/5 on the second. As long as you take notes during the videos for the lessons and take notes during the review lessons, you'll do better in no time.

@Mowers37 Bro keep going trust, just watch the videos for each section religiously and you'll go nuts bro. I got a 3/5 on the first attempt and 5/5 on the second attempt. You got this bro.

holy mackerel if the stimulus says the experimental educational programs are teaching parents how to be their child's first teacher, it would be unnecessary and illogical to assume they have prior experience as educators when the stimulus clearly implies they have clearly not having been taught how to be a teacher in the first place. "Oh but they're their first teacher" someone might say, well even if that is the case, that doesn't give us enough evidence to conclude B as the right answer OR my statement, which denounces B. Its unstable, and its illogical to assume, given that it could go either way. Suddenly we can't make implications about the stimulus good lord.

@AugustusGreenwood okay, I saw the explanation in the video and it makes sense to conclude B; The process of figuring out such a conclusion is a bit confusing to understand, given that the 'figuring out process' is a 'teasing out process' for how well the answer choice meets the requirements set in the stimulus. I think it is insanely helpful to say "what answer choice is B capable of delivering" beforehand, just because it prompts you to look at the 'it is wrong...' portion and result of the answer choice to which you evaluate it as the result of the following conditions presented in the answer choice.

Overall, not a huge fan of the implicit result/necessary condition formulation in this question; given that I would have probably been correct had I known the implicit reaction to the answer choice ahead of time. Putting it into the domain is a somewhat good idea for this question, but ultimately knowing how to clearly see through the implicit language they're using on the LSAT would be much more beneficial for the full understanding of these questions.

Personally, I like the conditional indicator words because of their severity when answering questions on the LSAT, but I think by not focusing on the implicit language the test makers may use in the grammar side of the test and the informal logic side of the test is a huuuuugely missed area that needs to be focused on for students that regularly go off the formal logic rules in these types of equations in a formal logic sense, rather than, what appears to be, an informal logic sense.

Also, I want to say that I'm very grateful for the video instruction and I can't thank 7Sage enough for the wonderful rendition of the correct answer choices during the video instruction. You saved me a lengthy crashout, thank you.

going to share my thoughts here as someone who was really confused by this question's Sufficient and Necessary components. I go this question wrong, but I'm so ticked off because the way D and A phrase the question are logically alligned with the conditional references we receive in the stimulus. allow me to explain:

If the conclusion is: "so what was done was wrong"

given the context of the scenario, but

The premises that follow indicate a sufficient condition to the action being wrong: " if it was intended to injure the second child."

"if" is a sufficient condition indicator, so why would the answer reflect the wrong order of the statements?

Written out in the correct order, the statement should look like:

"if it was intended to injure the second child, then what was done was wrong."

In Lawgic:

Intended to injure child --> injury wrong.

It doesn't make logical sense to conclude B because B has the premises and conclusion in the wrong order, which is the same order the stimulus has them, but it needs to be properly translated into sufficient and necessary conditions.

I haven't watched the video yet, so I will possibly update this to say I'm wrong, but so far B just seems like an illogical conclusion to come to, especially given the rules we have for conditional statements that use "if." Someone better have good reasoning to suppose this order is correct when it is clear the answer is illogical.

@brycekrampert Looks like we both chose A lol

@EricPreneta One hundred percent correct.

@EvanNabil highkey This is just to understand the structure of the sentences first

@NoaF123 I gotchu twin! I've been reading grammar books for fun for years now lol: the whole point of the 'black holes' sub-clause is to enunciate the larger clause from which it derives, in this case, the existence. This is primarily because if we strip the sentence all the way down and we're just left with the bare bones, the existence is all we need to know at a basic level. Of course, all the black holes do here is just give us details about what was so 'puzzling' for 'physicists' regarding "the existence" of something in the first place. If that makes any sense? If not, I can always reply here and do a little less jargon-esque response lol.

the first is pointing directly towards a causal relationship between the fast pass and Walt; given Walt has negated certain criteria required to have gained the fast pass in a certain manner, but still maintains the pass in general. Given that there is an alternative method to gaining the pass, we can conclude the one in Walt's possession came from that instance.

The tiger question, while there is a lacking in correlation between the instances, it promotes a causal relationship by means of the tigers attributes and the overall mammal population, which regards the terms 'suitable' and 'aggressive' in the same manner. Given that the tigers are mammals and the tigers are aggressive, we can assume the conclusion regarding mammals is referencing the premises of the tiger's attributes, or the tiger itself, thereby giving us the conclusion that the tiger is not a suitable pet.

The Cat question does not actual give any evidence to support the conclusion that the cat knocked over the trash can. Perhaps a force knocked over the can, but the cat eating salmon is ultimately dependent for the factor of the cat knocking over the trash can, therefore, we cannot conclude the cat knocked over the trash can, even if we can prove he ate the salmon, which is also unknown given the premises of the equation.

tiger: not all mammals are good runners.

tigers bad at chasing down prey in the wild.

Mickey:

this football season is hard, it costs seventy dollars to run the football season program, and the coaches are giving up on the season. Therefore, it is unlikely there will be a football season next year.

Mr. Fat Cat:

My food is gone. My dog is engaging in behaviors that commonly associate with hiding food. He is hiding my food.