@StevanBlauert Thank you!

Hey Stevan! Thanks for all the great advice. Quick Question.

How long did it take you to go from your original score of 137 to 180? Thanks!

Hi quick question. When explaining the right answer choice E, we are told that we can make a valid inference of "some" between the necessary conditions which is why we are able to infer that some countries are in favor of a greater role.

B has a similar formatting, but the connection is between the sufficient conditions, i,e: some countries in the southern hemisphere and not in favor of increased efforts.

So, what i am learning from this is that we cannot infer "some" statements between sufficient conditions, but can when its in the necessary condition. Is this correct?

Last clarification bit:

Invalid: SH <--s--> /I (because we can make some inferences between sufficient conditions

Valid: G <--s--> /SH. (because we can make some inferences between necessary conditions)

Thanks!

@CMas Hi Friend! Hope this helps:

Qeustion at hand: How do you strengthen a causal argument that contains multiple causal premises but only one clearly supports the conclusion?

Explanation: Identify a causal premise that is currently irrelevant, then add a link that connects it to the conclusion. A Strengthen answer can work by completing a causal chain:

If A → B is given, and the conclusion depends on C, strengthen by showing B → C.

🧠 Core LSAT Rule (memorize this)

If a premise doesn’t yet affect the conclusion, strengthen by giving it causal relevance.

Answer C provides a link that makes the first premise of the argument relevant to the conclusion: The Mild winter let birds forage in the forest instead of at the bird feeders where they are suseptible to pray and could be killed by predators, so since they are not exposed to predators and are foraging in the forest where they are less likely to do due to the mild winter, the argument is strengthened that the mild winter is responsible for this year's larger-than-usual bird population.

@SheridanMcGadden Underneath the title "Lesson 7 - Coastal Estuaries" there is an eye next to "show question" that you can click on to view the question. This option is under all lesson titles.

Analogous Verison of the cat Argument.

• There is a plant knocked over and spilled by the window.

• The pot is broken and the dirt is all over the floor.

• A guy name Edwin, is by the pot and his shoes and jeans are covered with the plants dirt.

• Edwin is responsible for knocking over, and breaking the pot.

Analgous version of the tiger argument.

• Some rollercoasters are not suitable for children under the age of 12. Xcelerator is a rollercoaster that reaches speeds fo 60+ miles an hour and has several loops in its framework.

Analgous version of the mickey mouse argument.

• Members of alaska airlines can buy a plane ticket to California from Seattle after 2 years of membership and when they have received 5,000 points in miles

• Members and non-members can buy their plane tickets through purchasing the flight with their own money

• Ellie has been an alaska Airline member for over 3 years

• She has accumulated over 10,000 points through flight purchases

• Ellie had her credit card stolen recently and can not purchase anything online with her money

• Ellie Purchased a flight from Seattle to California after her Credit Card was stolen

• Therefore Ellie must have bought her plane ticket with Alaska points.

Hi Everyone! My name is Danie, I am 27 and live in Seattle Wa. I graduated with a Comm + Polisci degree 3 years ago and am prepping to take the June LSAT. I'm a really good study partner, ex-athelte, 3.93 GPA and would love someone to do this journey with! Please hit me up if you're in Seattle. :)

@SophiaOrlando Hi Sophia! I live in Seattle, Wa. I would love a study partner! Lets connect?? :D

@LenaPoulsen11 Hi Lena! Austin huh?? I would love to go to UT Austin Law school. Let's connect! I plan to take the LSAT in June! Also, I am 27 years old woman currently living in Seattle, Wa :D. Hope to hear from you. Let's do this!