@Kevin Lin This was my first day of RC after finishing LR and it generated right at the end of the day! No LR at all for this day.

@sparklespice4 However you would like! The real LawHub UI allows you to strike out questions, then you can highlight or underline, so train your brain to associate one thing with a good answer and another with a "maybe" answer! Whichever way makes the most sense to you

My study plan assigned this to me partway into RC? Interesting...

@Veebeelee yeah, it needed more context. I assumed we were applying a principle, but we weren't given any indication in either direction.

@CamilleChmura we got tricked bc they used "implies" in one part and then stated a bunch of true facts, but we actually couldn't apply any of those facts because the "implies" part was subjective and weakened the argument

This lesson feels incomplete. Missing 1) a video explanation, 2) an introduction to what on earth a PAI question is (give an example first?), 3) showing the question you are referring to with Tom and Athena so we can understand what types of answer choices may be presented, and 4) a summary at the end of a very dense lesson.

this lesson would be a great video!

Totally ethical.

@rainbowshwa most A are /B OR half of A are B could maybe work, but that feels ineffective...

@reese.goodson you did it!

For Q6, I noted the "may" a bit differently and saw it as:

L10 and website -> eligible

However, the contrapositive does not always hold true. Now, I see "even" and realize it is describing an (irrelevant) extraneous case, NOT a rule in their logic!

@achois1025 I like that phrase! "In the question's universe-" is a great way to think of the test's logic without bringing in your own meta knowledge

NOTE FOR CANADIANS: Most applications will open in early September and close by December 1! Only a handful will still be open in February. Also note, all Canadian law schools are roughly equal quality: employers will select minimally based on the law school you attend, so don't stress about "elite" schools.

@Sameer Ahamad I would even see this as two premises!

1) Tigers are very aggressive, and

2) can cause serious injuries to people

Both of which support the claim that not every mammal is suitable as a pet. Because we're trying to prove a "not" statement, we only have to find one scenario where it is untrue (tigers) in order to prove the whole claim as "not" true! This is a very strong logical conclusion in math, and is exactly how you would go about it in a proof.