yay, finally something that makes sense to me!

@bellaens18 thanks! AI can actually be very helpful in explaining basic LSAT concepts if given the right parameters. As with anything though, it’s always best to do your own reasoning

@AnandChoudhary thank you! this really helps a lot :) I’m definitely having problems confusing sufficiency and necessity. I tried to map the statements as a chain (really had to try to make it work which should’ve been a red flag) and I’m shocked as anyone that I got the question right lol. I’m continuing to practice and little by little things are starting to make more sense

@DeborahJimenez I checked with chatgpt and it suggested something helpful so i thought i’d share:

When you see:

• “X is common”

• “X has feature Y”

• Conclusion: “Y explains X” or “X must have Y”

Ask:

👉 Are they treating this like a rule?

If yes, try:

/Y → /common

common

∴ Y (flawed)

So I followed the structure of the statement and mapped it out as this:

premise: advantages —> ABS —> common

conclusion: advantages —> common

I see in the video that it was mapped completely differently but I still got the right answer… so I guess I’m just wondering if my lawgic translation is still good or not?

This is the first lesson where I feel completely lost… does negating either of the main ideas help find the sufficient claim? I feel like my lawgic translations aren’t helping me identify what the original statement is saying lol