super confused how to do this using the psa sufficent is the premise and necessary is the conclusion strategy here. When there's a conditional in conclusion is the part we want to connect/arrive at always the necessary part?

@akikookmt881 In PSA lesson JY talks about how the premise should be the sufficient and conclusion should be the necessary. In your description of the correct answer, which is the correct answer, you have it the opposite way around the part from the premise is in the necessary part. I'm curious as to why this is and how you think about this strategy given by JY?

Okay so question, for necessary assumption is it always true to look at the supporting premises and see if the negation of the necessary makes the assumptions irrelevant to the conclusion? I was always looking at the necessary assumption to see if it made the conclusion irrelevant, but I think that is an incorrect approach?

Were there any indicator words in this stimulus to imply there was a conditional relationship? How to figure out conditionality when seemingly no indicator words?

I am genuinely so confused by this question. I don't really get what to do when the answers seemingly combine a feature of the necessary and sufficient together. So like when it says if and then should be capitalized but the part with the if (in a it was word that is a preposition or conjunction) are on two opposite sides of the conditional relationship, I don't understand how to check my conditional relationship. I get how to take contrapositive, I get when its and or or you do the opposite when getting contrapositive, but I was really stumped, and still am in reviewing, to see how I should've understood diagraming A and B to see if they match my correct diagram from the stimulus.

It made it more confusing by the fact that JY didn't acknowledge this in his explanation and just did a short hand with the diagram.

Please help!!

@PhoebeHopp But in the explanation he said explicitly that when is a sufficient indicator? So was he wrong?

Would A be a correct strengthener AC to this? I had the correct prephrase, namely that just bc selena doesnt have powers why does that mean others don't, but, like in other problems, I have trouble finding it in answer choices bc I am not familiar with the form it comes in, so just assume I have to throw it out.

I thought A was weird, but was closest to my prephrase because its like okay we are saying that to know if something is possible we need to know if Selena is psychic, but then doesn't that assume that we haven't already found someone to have psychic powers?

I actually eliminated B, because I saw it was the opposite of one of the conditional statements, so thought that meant immediately it was a Mistaken Reversal.

Can someone please explain why A doesn't and would never match that prephrase, whether it would be a good strengthener answer, and also whether it is wrong because it is a conditional stimulus and so the correct answer must be conditional and so that is why A also is wrong?

I think I incorrectly chose D (between D and A ) because, on reflection I thought that either part of the stimulus was fair game to weaken. I thought D would weaken the very idea that ppl get hit more at crosswalks than when not there. Maybe that is wrong, and that would be strengthened if drivers are more careful at crosswalks than not at crosswalks. I think my intiital prephrase was actually pretty much answer A, but I've had a problem in the past where I stuck too closely to my prephrase and so didn't evaluate answers that didn't align with my prephrase.

Also, answer A didn't totally match to my prephrase.

I have to remember in a phenomenon-hypothesis question , it is not valid to try to weaken the existence of the phenomenon, I should simply take the phenomenon happening as true. And then only attack the proof, ie hypothesis for why it happened.

@Rena12345 I was deciding between E for a little while longer than I should have. But, then I realized that E is wrong because it never mentions Sympathy and Justice and we NEED that in our correct answer or else what is the sympathy and justice doing in the first half of our sentence? What is its point?

What is a faster way to get the answer in this question type, besides plugging in the information from the stimulus into the remaining answer choices?

Trying to actually learn pattern recognition on these questions, what pattern of reasoning, or pattern of strategy, or pattern of flaw is to be gleamed from this that I should take away to use in other questions, in an abstract way?

@haena Wow, you're a star! Thank you so much for this!

@haena I've been studying for about a year with some breaks in between while working. I think the logging definitions is an interesting idea. How do you end up finding out that pattern? Is it through reading explanations or just deducing that this is a word that will be used in this way again? I think my problem is that while I am reading to understand, my understanding of what a stimulus or reading comprehension passage means is not the understanding I was supposed to take away. For the example of the red admiral butterfly, I broke the stimulus down, and still came away with the, wrong, understanding that they were trying to mimic, or at the very least came away without the correct understanding that the poisonous butterflies were doing something different.

I am just struggling to see what strategy I can use so that I can recognize which understandings they want me to have or how to lessen my urge to misunderstand what a stimulus or passage means.

Can someone please explain the phrase “dramatically from one organism to the next” can accurately be reasoned in this passage? It feels like a classic LSAT wrong answer as the passage mentioned a similarity amongst frogs and nematodes, and also we don’t know if every mammal or other animal would have a different mechanism for polarity.

Would love to see how to do this for a reading comprehension!

Interested! Please reach out!