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.