@shadimeraji61 and what was the answer? Just to clarify, are you saying that if something hasn't happened or is happening then does causal logic apply to it? because if nothing happened then there is nothing causing it?

Based on the explanation, you can actually conclude that the driver in this scenario will have a higher chance of getting into an accident. Why? Because the sports car is currently built to suit the way the driver drives which is reckless. If he switched to the minivan, then the car would not suit that driving style. Resulting in a higher chance of the car not being able to be controlled while driving recklessly.

@tjsmithpa03 Don't focus on the form of lawgic too much IMO. Just make sure you understand the actual Logic.

Think of It like this: Many can be many while still being below the threshold of most which is more than half. Many can not definitively mean most. However, Most means many because more than half is certainly many. The main difference is that many does not need to be half or more than half. Most relies on proportion while many does not.

So poorly explained and overcomplicated. I like 7Sage but towards the end of this foundation you guy have really not done a great job. Just use the first rule. You need to identify the rule and the exception. When the exception happens then there is no rule. If the exception doesn't happen, then there is just the rule. That's it.

I understand the logic, but it takes time for me to really understand it.

@amilligan Well if you make AAF the sufficient condition you are saying her giving the speech MUST (N) be the outcome. If her giving the speech is now the necessary indicator then the speech WILL happen which makes /P. The reason why SAS is the sufficient condition is because it is not a MUST be outcome/Required/Necessary that is why it says can/If because that gives more options-it has more "freedom." Sorry if that doesnt make sense

To own a dog one must have responsibility. If you have responsibility you must be intelligent, Which further requires a desire. Therefore, if you want to own a dog you must have a desire. OAD->R->I->D. OAD->D. I know there are plenty of flawed assumptions here.

@katrina Yes. Your intuition is right. I tried to actually understand the logic before relying on indicators. I have done it this past week and it has helped a lot. It is disappointing 7Sage doesnt stress this. You should definitely do it because this isn't just about getting it memorized-we are dealing with a logic based test so you need to actually understand it.

I don't like how instead of breaking down the S/N conditions we are relying on indicators here. We just skipped over why each clause was S or a N condition.

It took me embarrassingly long to understand this but I want to post it for anybody who is having trouble understanding the "Arrow question"-meaning what happens to the sufficient and necessary titles:

I need to preface that you need to start off with the right premise because i didn't. I didn't understand Conditions. Conditions are not this is sufficient and this is necessary-it's more like this condition causes the other one to happen or be true.

A condition: A situation or state that causes another to have to be true. That's what the LSAT means by conditional logic.

Not Mammal becomes sufficient condition because it's ENOUGH to guarantee Not Cat-BUT it is sufficent because you can be Not Cat in other ways like being a dog. It's a condition because Whenever not mammal happens not cat will happen-thats the condition.

Not Cat is necessary because we know that when Not Mammal is true then Not Cat MUST happen/Be true. That is why it's necessary. When not mammal happens not cat must happen to/has to follow.

If x then Y actually means Xis the trigger (sufficient) - Y is guaranteed (Necessary).

Not mammal -> Not cat ---- means : whenever the condition of not mammal happens, the condition of not cat must also happen

If one was born in New York City, then one is American. Zach was born in NYC. Therefore, Zach is an American.

@Benjaminrobert I also want to add another way to break this down: To be a part of a specific subset is not necessary to be a part of the superset because there are many different subsets. On the other hand, to be a part of the subset you must be a part of the superset because the super set is the characteristic or trait all the subsets must share as a default but the subsets have their own nuances.

A tip to help anyone that is confused: Don't use the words "membership", "Sufficient", and "necessary." Instead just say something like this: Being a part of mammal set is not enough to be a part of cat set—but being a mama is needed to be a part of cat set. Or: You need to be a mammal or a part of mammal set to be in the cat club. Play around with the words.

Why is "To ensure access to a well-balanced diet" a premise? It seems it should be context.

@janetchase Just seeing this now. I ended up learning that you can use outside knowledge that is universal. For example the sun is hot or a dog is a living thing. Just things that make sense.

From Ai when I needed to clear some things up:

So it’s a two-step thing:

1. Dependency test (inside the argument world) → Does the premise-to-conclusion link require this assumption?

2. Reasonableness test (real-world common knowledge) → Is this assumption one most people would agree is fair?

At first I thought a possible assumption if we are trying to poke holes in the reasoning would be that non-members of Disney Vacation club can access the Genie+ pass a different way. However, once we mention that Walt is a member of the DVC than that assumption is no longer being made.

I think there are some inconsistencies in this module. Example: In the question number 4, we didn't say the winds was an object, but on the video we did. I think there are also issues with differentiating objects and modifiers.

When viewing the actual argument we are supposed to view it in "the world" of the premise. So, when talking about assumptions - are we supposed to rate its reasonableness based off our general world knowledge? (so not just in the arguments world)