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.

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.

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

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.