dramamine

@Remus Same I noticed this I'm guessing its a typo.

bro D is literally a summary of all paragraphs bruh wth

@AvaEnglish 180 score, no need to beat yourself you got this.

@maizinburly527 nice explanantion for A. Got it right but wanted to see the explanation in physical words. thank you.

@jessegrewal08585 bro there's nothing beautiful at all bro.

@mohud97221 I think Passage 1 had that situation the main point/purpose of passage was just that theres just a debate about a particular subject.

Wig sales 📈 after the video

46/46 but I think it'll be nice to come back and review these 3 quizzes to get even more familiar. Especially between MSS and MBT question stems. And some of flaw descriptive weakening given their frequency.

@mahekmallik01148 depends if this sample of 46 was randomly selected lol.

what's PF? parallel flaw?

I wanted a clear description on what this section is?

Similar reasoning of method or similar flawed reasoning method?

Parallel includes both valid and flawed parallel arguments right?

if the condition is that

car phone usage --> poses threat to safe driving

and we know that illegal --> deters car phone usage aren't we committing a sufficiency necessity error here?

even if (car phone usage --> poses threat to safe driving) is a causal claim

someone please help me understand.

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

@bernardjoon1261 bro everyone complains that JY doesn't give a robust explanation for particular ACs that he'll usually brush off and now when he goes over each one and provides crucial info ya'll start complaining lol.

especially for this section the overlap of flaw describing answer choices in varying phrases is helpful lol.

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

@propilot disclaimer above already was that its not exhaustive. It also even provides other flaws that no lessons covered False dichotomy for example.

@Nickgigs yeah we were primed, but i'll take some fake confidence boosting anyime tho.

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).

This right here is the good shit.

@sylviatantran380 Your explanation for E is spot on thank you. I would just like to add that yes the argument is flawed in that conflates a single cause approximate age (AA) as a necessary cause meaning that in order to have the causal effect of FEELING COMFORTABLE APPROACHING (FCA) you must have the necessary cause of approximate age occur. It makes this conflation (FCA --> AA) in order to draw the conclusion LT -m-> AA.

However, this is the exact flaw of the argument in that conflating AA as a necessary cause presumes without justification that there aren't other causal factors that can contribute FCA. Or "It neglected to consider the possibility that one may feel comfortable approaching a stranger even if they're not one's approximate age. MEANING even if AA is failed the causal effect of FCA can still result through other causal factors besides AA, because AA wasn't a necessary cause in the first place yet it was presumed without justification to be when merely it was just a causal factor to FCA.

@Kevin Lin I am confused may you offer some help. If the premises is friend -m-> feel comfortable <-C- approx age and then draws the conclusion that friend -m-> approx age. Does it mean that it mistook a cause to be a necessary cause that that false assumption would be mapped out like this?

friend -m-> feel comfortable -C-> approx age?

I am having a hard time understanding necessary causes and have been searching the internet for many days.

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.

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