I'm just wondering all the other 4 that do "weaken" the argument aren't they denying the premises though? I thought we were told that denying the premises might not be the way to weaken?

Why do I feel like I touched Goku 4 times

This was yet another very helpful question with its lessons to keep in mind for future flawed causal questions.

The argument is flawed because it simply assumes Iatrogenic diseases which is a sufficient cause to death to conclude on the basis that it is a necessary cause which is wrong.

And with the AC introducing the overlooked possibility that there are multiple alternative causes besides Iatrogenic disease the argument is weakened because we can't conclude that half of the deaths will decrease.

While in the next question it mistakes a single effect to be the only effect of a cause, this question conflates a single cause to be the only necessary cause and falls vulnerable to alternative causes, this instance being the sickness that lead patient to receive hospitalization and medical error in the first place.

The importance I got from this question to keep in mind for future causal logic flawed questions is that this argument is flawed in that it presumes based on the only "con/negative effect of dairy" (heart disease increase from dairy) to be the ONLY EFFECT of dairy consumption. But it overlooks the other causal pathway effects that dairy can cause, others which are positive and beneficial.

Which is why the argument is flawed in that it overlooks that eventhough the consumption dairy might have the negative effect of heart disease, the prevention of dairy consumption will bring negative effects, because ITS OTHER EFFECTS which are positive are then removed from consumption such as calcium and other nutrients. But this is the flaw because the stimulus singled out on this particular effect and didn't consider the others.

this was a very robust explanation of not only the stimulus and its assumptions, but also of each answer choice. I guess I had to better recognize that the conclusion was one that was arguing that b/s discs could not lead to serious back pain to mean that they aren't causal factors at all.

Then, I could draw the distinction that from the premises about how they are not sufficient causal factors to serious back pain could obviously still be general causal factors as they contribute just not that they guarantee the result.

Good question to help distinct the differences between a necessary cause (like what iatrogenic disease, and lead paint at homes aren't), sufficient causes that guarantee our target phenomena, and general factors that nonetheless still contribute to our target phenomena. Here our argument presumes that just because they aren't sufficient they also aren't general causal factors. That is the major assumption that renders this argument flawed.

does this include people the age of 67?

I understand the question but damn only a 154, bruh.

Ok i understand the majority of this as these are techniques dealing with rules and their exceptions in order to bring us to a valid inference or conclusion, however what is this lesson's application to LSAT questions? Like, will these complicated conditionals be in the answers or the stimulus most of the time?

bro what the helly

We learned conditional lawgic translation but then a random ass tree diagram is pulled out of nowhere. bruh that doesn't help.

At 3:27 of the video, does the unless sentence is one cannot become a jedi equal to /J, and then the group 3 indicate flipped it to J --> D?

ahh if it isn't Mr. McGill himself

I didn't understand this question, but I got it right by matching the conclusion to a necessary condition that had something to do with timing "recent." and saw if the AC rule also provided a sufficient condition that could be triggered by the facts of our case which B had.

I have one question it says that to analogize them it could be either that Physics is equally or LESS effective. Wouldn't it being less effective also disanalogize it? Or am I seeing it wrong and that it being less effective strengthens even more because it suggests that they could use the same route that Biologists took.

Classified this bad boi as a "lack of support /= proving a claim is false or true"

Theodora, either read or listen carefully next time, tf are you doing.

I think right now I have to get familiarized with recognizing premise-correlation and conclusion-causation structures. At first seeing "the school performance of the children in these programs is better than average" was a little difficult at first. But once knowing that was the structure, then it makes clear that to weaken the argument there are other causal hypotheses like a preexisting tendency of the participants of the "experiment" an alternative cause that explains the correlation other than the educational program itself.

Because I have excelled an all and every part of the LSAT including all of its question types, I will therefore succeed on the LSAT itself.

LSAT is more than the combination of its parts (unfortunate).

isn't cave-dwelling ancestors a subset of early humans? I didn't want to make the mistake of assuming that they were equivalent and it still bit my ass.

This right here is the good shit.

I guess my main question is that in formal logic section we were told to not use our pre-existing knowledge of the content in our search for answers. However, now I feel like the smoking and lung cancer example prompted me to use real-life knowledge to some degree in order to sort through the methods accordingly.

I felt as if I was using real-life knowledge to come to that decision. Let's say in the future its not a straight forward correlation of smoking and lung cancer but something that I might not have pre-existing knowledge would I then be cooked?

What's the proper way to think of this in terms of evaluating the 4 hypotheses through these methods and how I would incorporate my existing knowledge?

I think instead of the jokes here and there, you guys can throw in an example from the actual test. This would be far more beneficial to everyone spending time trying to understand the material without any sort of real hands-on application.