This is sooo stupid but I am confused still why D is wrong.

if the conclusion starts "so if they were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnakes age...."

Cant you say "wait, but the tail is correlated with the life span (negation of D), so the rest of your argument doesnt matter because this first part of your conclusion is wrong." Or are we so glued in this to being non-brittle that this error doesnt matter?

I dont think enough time was given to B in this section, as I think a higher scorer if they did not initially realize the problem in A would go to B anticipating a trap answer. Lets say museum revenue had only been below operating costs for the last week because there was a necessary repair being made on the building. If operating expenses were to just go back to normal soon after, a necessary assumption for the argument would have to be some sort of constantness to operating costs being higher than revenue.

While I get A, and understand this might be to much of a jump to make B work, I think the video should give some credence to why B might work and help explain why a jump like this would not.

Can anyone help me out with this? Not sure I understand after watching the video why its D and not A

Ugh not sure if its like the later videos in logical reasoning but I simply CANNOT listen to this mans voice anymore (hes an incredible teacher tho no disrespect)!!! Does anyone have tricks to get over this? Its become like nails on a chalkboard for me....

I understand the questions were not so difficult after I actually understood the passage but -- oh my -- this felt like the hardest passage I have ever read in my LSAT studying.

Really disliked this question. Not sure how people got C here, but felt like it could really have been either A or B.

the conditionals we are given are:

g.l→s.i

i. f→ s.i

i.f → r.l

as g.l →s.i obviously doesnt matter, we can strike it leaving us with:

i.f →s.i

i.f →r.l

You are supposed to pick B here instead of A because of the ",for" (meaning because) which for them seems to be sufficient to logically indicate that s.i → r.l is missing. For some reason, this really urks me because I dont think thats enough to indicate the relationship should be s.i →r.l more than r.l → s.i, which would naturally swing the question in favor of A or B. Not sure if I am missing something but I just dont think thats enough to move the needle in either direction.

Kind of feel like there might need to be a different explanation as this video doesnt seem to be doing it for a lot of people

SUPER easy way to understand this question. I was stuck between B and D, however I honed in that the conclusion is about "interpretating" love, and between B,C, and D only D spoke about interpretation. Really emphasizes focusing on the C in P --> C

TBH if you knew what economy of expression means for this question it would take 2 seconds... Is this an example of a question that would be thrown out? I just feel like as the LSAT is testing you on your logical reasoning skills and not necessarily your vocab this would be one that was totally up for debate.

I am a bit confused as to these negations relevancy? I understand being familiar with being presented a relationship like this but is that the only reason it was included in foundations?