I’m taking the LSAT in February as well. I’d be interested in forming part of a study group!

someone please explain how the first sentence in the last paragraph about “new support” is distinguished as the authors opinion. I see no difference between that statement and the other claims. To me it doesn’t jump out as “this is what I think”

I kept getting these non-casual WSE questions wrong. I reviewed the lesson on non-casual logic and got this one correct. I was missing the fundamentals. Analogy and cost benefit. Now I know what to focus on to weaken or strengthen arguments using non-casual logic. Evaluate still tricky.

Yo this question fucking sucked. Shoutout to the guy who said it made him feel like he’s the one smoking killer weed.

@RyanAlexander i enjoyed this comment very much Ryan. Thank you

@Helen Bouchereau I thought the same thing. I had to go below to the text after the video, which I usually don’t do, to see that D was correct. From rewatching the video I believe that the instructor was circling the ones that explained the phenomenon because we were looking for the 4 which helped explain and the one left out would be the correct one. It wasn’t said so explicitly

@mattrettig definitely a good observation. My way of thinking about it is if the answer is not definite it’s easier to support. Of course you still have to factor in other things, but to tie it back to ur point since the stimulus uses most and we know most is not all it helps us support answers with probably. If it was all then the answer would be a definite.

Makes me feel better that other people also felt this one was tricky. I’m glad my intuition helped me get the right answer because I had a hard time mapping the Lawgic. For some reason I didn’t make the connection in sentence 1 and sentence 2 that consumer living in DT increase and I separated the claims. I’m starting to apply the lessons while reading the stimulus so I’m feeling good. It took me about 3 mins but I got it right. Video helped me map out the lawgic. Also I’m glad I realized the and was not a conjunction but a separate conditional.

@Chad1125 I made that mistake. Just brushed past the question and assumed it was MSS. Lesson learned.

@jhlaier ahhh your example really helped me understand.

@Joshua794 I get that makes sense, but the authors main point in writing this statement in this example is to convince you on the method he uses why Max is not guilty. The author’s main conclusion is not Max is not guilty it is the method on the authors inference.

@CeciliaBurton1 thank you for the example

@JeremyK in the lesson before this one they gave a great visualizer to explain this.

B and C have some overlap and the only thing we can infer is that that overlap is more than 0 so we cannot say Most Bs are C. The instructor actually said in the formal argument 6 lesson regarding this with the buckets example doesn’t work as well. This is the example they gave

if we have 5 A’s and most (more than half) A’s are B and C then we know it must be true that at least 3 A’s are B and same goes for C so that leaves one A to look like this

A B

A B

A B C some B are C

A C

A C

I don’t like example 1 because he explains how from his knowledge he doesn’t know any water breathing mammals. While that is true! I presumed we have to turn off our world knowledge brain to get to an answer in LSAT questions. So if we negate all non water breathing mammals have limbs would the negation not be some non W breathing mammals have limbs. I’m using the rule from last lesson about negating All. It could also be it’s not the case that all nonWB mammals have limbs. Why did the instructor use outside knowledge for this.

So two valid arguments based on the conditions given. Students cited late ONLY IF they are more than 5 minutes late. Elias was cited late. So Elias arrived more than 5 minutes last. Or the contrapositive not cited late then not arriving more than 5 minutes past the last ring. The confusing part is why would 17 minutes late not be in more than 5 minutes late. The only thing I can think of is because we are solely going based on what they give us.

So even if we know 17 is more than 5 since they did not explicitly say that we ignore it. Correct me if I’m wrong. So unless it says more than 5 minutes late or the contra positive it is not a a valid argument. Correct me if I’m wrong

@sb.blais the point of changing which to that was simply to show that from the original sentence which is used to put together two standalone sentences. You are right you could’ve used “this” instead no specific rule

@JosePerales the only reason it is not is because the sentence here is talking about the privileged people in society. They were the support base for the authoritarian regime. So when the word “it’s” is used it is referring to the authoritarian regime.

@ryanmcamp01 So the cat is the subject, likes to drink is the verb and the object is milk. How I understood the relationship between the verb and the object is to think what noun follows the verb. For example, the cat sings lullabies. What does the cat sing lullabies. Now if we think in this example from the video what does this cat drink milk. It’s adding and follows the verb describing the action of the subject. explaining it helps me retain the info hope that helps.

2/3. I’m getting used to using the “why should I believe this” method to identify p and c’s. I got the agriculture question wrong even though I had a solid prediction of the answer after reading the passage. I did not pay attention to answer E and answered A bc it looked right to me.

@SamuelMiller the reason that “his asking the police to investigate” is the conclusion is because it receives support from another sentence in the passage. The author’s claim is that Max asking the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty. If we ask ourselves why should we believe that? Because he would not ask the police to investigate if he was guilty. Hope that makes sense it is not a strong argument and you might even disagree with the claim, but I guess the point of this exercise is to identify premise and conclusions and not to analyze how strong the premise supports the conclusion.

@tiara-ross4 the premise is the claim that throws support like a pitcher in baseball to the conclusion like the catcher. If you notice a claim/sentence is stated to support another claim, then that is your premise. On the other hand if you notice a claim does not support any other statement and is being supported by other claims/sentences in the passage that is your conclusion.