#help - can B and D be eliminated because they are too similar for either to be correct (AKA we know only one answer is correct while all others are incorrect)? Just want to make sure I'm being strategic about eliminating ACs and was unsure of whether to do this in the moment and want to recognize when I should have done it.

#help does the LSAT ever give an otherwise good answer that is weakened by hearsay being a factor? I chose B because I didn't get the timeline piece, so I know now that it is wrong, but I was between B and E and wrote E off because it seemed like a very weak additional fact. (why do we trust this one random merchant? haha)

thank you so much!

I chose E because I think I've conflated "primary purpose" with "main point". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the author has the strongest opinion when he talks optimistically about the potential medical applications of this new theory, which leads me to believe that this must be his/her primary purpose and main point.

For primary purpose, if the author states an opinion, what question should we keep in mind to choose the right answer? I ask because, for "main point" where the author gives an opinion, I think "what does the author want us to take away?". Is "primary purpose" calling for something broader than that (like more of an overview/summary of the passage)?

Is FEW synonymous to SOME?

For B, IF the premises correctly chained up and said "Most birds are migratory and most migratory birds leave by end of Nov", would the conclusion of "few birds remain during winter" be synonymous to "most birds leave by winter" and therefore be analogous to "most auto mechanics understand electronic circuits"? Would there be an issue with "leave by end of Nov" and "remain during winter" and/or would there be an issue of few vs. some? because my understanding is that saying most DO this and some do NOT do this are analogous.

This doesn't make sense to me. Can we have another example for the E flaw?

Here is an argument that exemplifies the flaw in (E)

If every person is exclusively self-interested, then government by consent is impossible. Some social theorists conclude from this that government by consent is impossible. [Assumption: people are exclusively self-interested] But there are many thriving governments by consent around the world. [Social theorists’ conclusion is false.] Hence, people must not be exclusively self-interested. [Not necessarily. People could be exclusively self-interested. It could be that self-interest does not imply that government by consent is impossible.]

#feedback - Can an instructor explain what we should know about prescriptive and descriptive writing? It keeps being referenced as something to look out for, but I'm not totally sure why I am looking out for it. It would be helpful to hear a direct explanation of the below.

Is it true that descriptive stimuli will never have a prescriptive AC be correct? And vice versa? Does it depend on the question type?

@NoraElkhyati Thanks Nora!!

#feedback - for these lessons, it would be nice if you don't immediately give away if an answer's correct or incorrect. Introducing (A) by immediately circling it as correct doesn't give time for us to process the choice ourselves and/or walk through the analysis with you before you circle or cross it out.

I get why the others are incorrect but still hate when questions pick and choose when to be precise with wording in the stimulus & correct answer. Being allowed to work by yourself and MUST work by yourself are two different things :/

@CL10235 Hi, the grammar indicates that the "several decades" is the most recent several decades through the use of "has". If the statement said "For several decades, microchip speed doubled", we wouldn't really know whether this group of decades happened in the early 20th century or in the LAST few decades. But when they say "For several decades, microchip speed HAS doubled", we know that it refers to the last few decades.

Said differently (online source): "The difference between "has done" (present perfect) and "did" (simple past/past done) lies in the relationship of the action to the present moment. "Has done" links a past action to the present (result, experience, or recent completion), while "did" indicates a completed action at a specific time in the past with no necessary connection to the present."

@PhoebeHopp thank you! just flagging that this contradicts with what Kevin shares in his video -- maybe there's a way to edit the video so others aren't confused.

@lucas.guyton52704 We'll start to see patterns with more practice, I'm sure. (Relating fully with your frustration but trying to keep the faith)

I wonder if there's a way to practice just valid inferences from the stimuli. Like flashcards or something with examples.

Is it safe to always interpret "can/capable of" and "~actually~ do/done" as synonymous for the purpose of chaining conditional arguments? (from Pokemon question). In any other context, I would assume that being capable of evolving and actually evolving are two different stories.

Question for a 7Sage instructor (but happy to have input from others as well!):

7Sage keeps referencing "cultivating habits" like fleshing out referentials, setting aside modifiers to see the passage's core structure, identifying what is being compared, how it is being compares, and which thing wins in comparisons, but I'm unsure of which habits/exercises, if any, you actually want us to be doing on paper as we work through questions in the hopes of getting the right answer.

In other words, can you please explicitly share with us what we should be writing down when we answer these questions? I want to know because, of course, in a perfect non-time-constrained world, we would embrace all of these habits by fleshing out every passage's complexity in every possible way. And maybe, in the beginning, you would like us to? But it is helpful for me to hear whether any of these exercises/habits are actually worthwhile (time-wise) to be jotting down on test day.

Everyone thinks/works differently so I understand that is difficult to broadly advise us, but please let me know of your thoughts. Thank you so much!!

On the Spectrum of Support, I see that "unsupported" is on the far right with the "weak arguments". I thought that the definition of an argument is premise + conclusion (a statement that SUPPORTS another statement and a statement that IS SUPPORTED by another statement). So, how can "unsupported" be an option as an argument?

Relatedly, could you please tell me whether the following is an argument:

"Dalmations have spots. Therefore, my dog must be a Dalmation."

I ask because this seems like an example of an unsupported argument, if such a thing exists. The writer has a clear message ("My dog is a Dalmation"), but the previous statement doesn't really support the conclusion. If we make a ton of unreasonable assumptions (my dog has spots, the only dogs with spots are Dalmatians, etc.), the first statement can be considered a premise but that feels wrong.

But what if the kid didn't know the cookie jar was "forbidden"? Nowhere does it say that the kid KNEW/SUSPECTED that this particular action was forbidden, even if he knows that, GENERALLY, forbidden actions without permission are wrong.

I guess the takeaway is that it IS an argument, but is not a STRONG argument. The fact that the kid took the "forbidden cookie" without permission coupled with the fact that he knows forbidden actions without permission are wrong makes it MORE LIKELY (but not CERTAIN) that the kid knows he did something wrong ... right?