Hey there!

Yup, we do have this! It's under our foundational concepts, under the "Conditional and Set Logic" module. Here's one of the many: https://7sage.com/lesson/skill-builder-group-1-translations/

Happy studying!

When it comes to drilling, the key is to focus on your comfort level and understanding of the material, rather than a specific number of repetitions or how many you get right or wrong. If you feel confident that you understand how to work this question type after one drill, that's great! However, if it takes five or more attempts to feel comfortable, that's perfectly fine too. Everyone's learning pace is different.

Additionally, I strongly recommend revisiting each question type periodically. This practice will not only help reinforce your understanding but also ensure that your skills remain sharp over time. Consistent review is as important as the initial learning.

Hey there!

If you think of concessions as a type of contextual information while reading an LSAT stimulus, you're going to be okay. I like to think of concessions like the author conceding a point that might weaken his argument, only to address why it doesn't weaken his argument later down on the road. I hope this helps!

Hey Zach,

A concession will never logically strengthen the author's argument. They aren't premises, and should be taken as contextual information!

This is correct! The upper bound of "many" is 'all'.

Hi there!

I think (B) can indicate a reason why he might be in the painting (because he's resembles a real person from history). But does the reason why he's in the painting matter? I'm not sure it's helpful to weaken the argument. Why can't he paint himself and also be someone from history at the same time? I think you're making the assumption that one must exclude the other. But why is that the case?

Hey there! You're right, it's not explicitly stated, but it's very strongly implied, which is exactly what an MSS question is asking you to find. Something that is strongly implied from the facts in the stimulus.

It's the case that they should either be reeducated or sent to jail.

It's very likely reeducation won't work.

Therefore, we should use jail time instead. (Answer Choice A)

Here's an example argument:

I will either eat an apple or an orange.

I'm severely allergic to oranges.

Therefore, I should eat the apple. (correct answer choice)

Yes, I could still technically eat an orange if I'm severely allergic to it, but what's more likely to happen given the evidence I presented?

Hey there! Ad hominem arguments do attack the speaker, and they are fallacies, but the reason why they're fallacies is that they attack the speaker on irrelevant grounds that has nothing to do with the argument. Here, for AC A, the reason why it's not a fallacy is because attacking the credibility of the study does actually affect the likelihood of the study being wrong. Something ad hominem that would be a flaw is something on the lines of "the study was conducted by people in the past who conducted bad studies before". Notice how this type of reasoning attacks the person specifically, but does so in an irrelevant way that doesn't tell us anything about whether or not the specific study in question is wrong or not.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

Hey there! I'm a little confused by your question - what exactly do you mean by opposite?

There should essentially be four answer choices that "could be true" and one answer choice that cannot be true based on the stimulus, right? Can you clarify on why you think D isn't the right answer?