@8Swans I straight up miscounted the paragraphs lmao.

Wow. wtf

I presumed the "fact" in D was referring to the actual discrepancy and the theory in question to be "typological theory". I also thought that it was reasonable to presume that mainstream biological theory was a fact because the argument did.

But if you go by that reasoning, he didn't say it was proven false, just that it was unacceptable. You can have a theory that's unacceptable for reasons besides it being false. Figured it was getting too weird and picked C.

Crazy to me that this is Level 3. The reasoning is pretty abstract

Inez is claiming that the effect of her plan would be more willingness to buy antiques.

Is disagreeing with her prediction the same as saying it will have a contrary effect? Anika is basically saying the effect could be any true outcome besides the effect Inez stated.

Has anyone else found it easier to just rename the visual sets to /(variable) and inverting the set order when doing lots of work on contrapositives?

@Kaileavesley Took me a while to get it.

Question: How are the individual home dinners of these two groups so similar despite one group spending more time per week making food.

D. The group with less time makes fewer dinners every week. So their individual home dinners have similar amounts of time per dinner.

Knew I was wrong answering this because the LSAT doesn't make you choose between five subjective values. E is like getting punched in the mouth with how straightforward it is.

"Phenom-Hypothesis"

A's explanation made no sense to me. It was contradicting the definition of sufficiency.

If:

Finding -> Pain

It follows that

/(finding + /pain)

If findings is sufficient for pain, it follows that it is not the case that one can have finding and no pain.

I better be the argumentative equivalent of Neo in the matrix when these lessons are over.

It is not the case that one should /health -> money

/(/health -> money)

For without health, no happiness

/Health -> /happiness

Which means it is not the case that you should sacrifice health, and thus sacrifice happiness, to get money

/(/health -> /happiness -> money)

No clue how I got A from this

@iammichaelscott My trick was to manipulate the paragraph into something way more simple to follow.

If "Able to make lifestyle choices" + "See lifestyle acceptance" -> "Easier to live enjoyably"

Look at the second sentence. Mental note that "Choose friends" can -> "See lifestyle acceptance" to jump into our chain above.

Final sentence. If you are in set "/Choose friends" then it follows you are "Nobody"

Quickly skim the answer choices. Keep it simple in my head grammatically.

1. If you can't choose your friends, then you are nobody. If you're somebody you can choose.

2. I know that one of many possible ways to "Easier to live enjoyably" is "Choices" + "Acceptance"

3. "Choose friends" -> "Acceptance"

A. I do not know what nobody can or can't do. Immediately skip this

B. All I know about anybody is they can choose their friends

C. If assumed, grants us a rule about nobody that connects our conclusion and premises

D. No rules for this conditional.

E. Got no rules about what an action making my life easier potentially allows me to do.

Took a 50 second detour on the assumption train to B before I realized nobody said the guy who got an apology was owed one.

This question brought to you by Big Lightbulb

Hard question. Rare case of outside knowledge being harmful. In this case I knew intuitively that experiments structured like this are prone to errors due to the bias in who performs the activity tending to be people who experience the effect you're looking for, but did not actually understand why the answer I chose was correct.

I've noticed a couple of questions where the writers will prey on the scientific intuition of STEM majors and this one threw me for a loop because it was exactly what I thought.

If you are trying to work on improving your time, these lessons seem like they will be helpful. I can imagine switching between rulesets based on the grammatical structure of the stimulus can save you time on thinking and diagramming.

@timwes21 Harry's muggle life sucked. We know that if you're Harry's friend, then you're probably a wizard. We know that most who are not his friends (most of the world) are muggles.

But all that doesn't mean Draco being a wizard automatically makes it likely that he's Harry's friend. After all, lots of wizards in the world and only so much Harry to go around.

In plain English. Plaintiff's argument hinges on being SC. Judge states "Say you are SC, it is necessarily true that you are contained in the superset (I) of people discriminated against based on an immutable characteristic".

SC -> I

Judge Argues:

"I do not have sufficient proof to say that being gay is an immutable characteristic"

and

Not providing evidence for I = /I

It follows that /I -> /SC