@DouglasSmith I got the Negation wrong and I removed that from the first response. the negation explanation starts at 18:55.

@DarcyOvalles Not an expert, but this is how I see it.

I think he wants to keep it conditional and the contra positive will be the correct answer.

Stim:

Incapable of making major alterations --> Incapable of complex reasoning

Contra:

Capable of Complex Reasoning --> Capable of Making major alterations.

If you negate the Contra, the conditional reasoning fails (hence the argument falls apart).

@jirehmayers By no means am I an expert, but I think of Necessary assumption as a bridge. So the answer will continue building the bridge, but the moment you negate the answer, boom the links forming the bridge stop going. So when you find an answer that when you negate breaks the logic (the bridge) its going to be the the right one.

Sufficient assumption is like trying to fix a broken bridge, you are trying to choose the answer that mends the missing link in the bridge.

Please keep in mind this seems to be helping me understand this stuff. I am also getting very frustrated with these level 4s and 5s right off rip.

take the Wild flower question, the survival of Wild Flowers depends on reproduction.

Answer to that was D: Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able to reproduce.

You negate it, they don't reproduce, if they don't reproduce the end of the bridge falls apart.

The "Bridge" (In my own words): Wild flowers are going to be extinct so they need to reproduce with Daisy and this reproduction forms Hybrids. Hybrids act as the continuation of the Wild Flower species since their parent "Wild Flowers" are headed for extinction.

If the hybrids reproduce the wild flowers will live on and continue the bridge. If they don't reproduce the end of the Bridge is Broke and Both the Hybrids die and the Wild Flowers die. Making it all fall apart.

@lawshosh gotta love the level 5 questions right off rip of learning something new.

@danjpeach96 This makes it more clear, and less letting the LSAT writers have this.

I still somewhat believe the likelihood of not having the Book as an actor would be unlikely. Namely if they had access to it in the past and are taking up writing an Abridgment. However, your analogy works to curve this.

Thank you for taking the time to dissect my understanding. It helped curve my thought process on this. Even though it feels wrong to think like that, it also makes sense.

@danjpeach96 I find it very very unlikely that an actor who is having to memorize a character's speeches to not have a copy of Hamlet. I'll let the LSAT writers have this, but to assume an actor doesn't have a copy of a play is similar to assuming that a first chair in an orchestra doesn't have a copy of the music and they aren't able to practice on their own and some how have a deep understanding of the piece they are reciting. Or players in a sport don't have access to a playbook to study the plays.

@danjpeach96 While yes, the Actor would be someone intimately familiar with that particular speech, it's not unreasonable to say that the spectator was not also intimately familiar with the speech. But the restriction that the "The person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet" more likely rules out the actor since they would be more likely to have a copy of the play than the spectator would. Without the outside knowledge of the 17th century and the cost of books, it is not clear that an actor who, needs to read from Hamelt, would not have a copy or at least access to the copy.

Yes take the Gospel as truth and I would use a scale of assumption: Very Strong (VS) --> Uncertain --> Very Weak (W). Remember, not using outside knowledge and applying book prices and time period restrictions.

The actor not having a copy (Very Weak)

• Needs to read a copy in order to memorize the lines.

The Spectator not having a copy (Slightly Below Very Strong)

• the spectator is there to view the play.

The Actor containing "a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters" (strong- in the middle of VS and Uncertain)

• While yes he would have an accurate knowledge of his role. But he didn't have a copy of the play, so how could he truly get an accurate knowledge with out possessing a copy?

The Spectator containing "a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters" (Uncertain)

• The Spectator is there because one is interested in viewing the play. Indicating some level of desire to listen and retain.

I would say it is more likely the spectator paid attention than the Actor, who needs to read a copy of Hamlet to memorize and accurately render the speeches of their characters, to not have a copy of Hamlet. The huge gap in the first restriction is what gets me.

For a test that explicitly states you should not use outside knowledge, it tends to play with outside knowledge quite a bit. Take this question for example, which I disagree with the correct answer.

Clear indicators of who this is: First, the person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet. Second, the abridgment contains a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters, but a slipshod handling of all the other parts.

According to the LSAT it is (C) The abridgment was produced by an actor who had played a role in Hamlet.

Wouldn't this be more likely that the actor who had a role to have a copy of Hamlet? Namely since they are in the play and need to know how the other characters interact with one another? And would have been present with other actors during rehearsals, who would of had other portions of Hamlet that they would have had access to? (To contradict the outside knowledge of Book Cost of the 17th century).

Instead this answer preys on outside knowledge. To someone with now outside knowledge of how theatre works, there is no strong indication or assumption that actors "could lack a copy". To further contradict the explanation, "Books haven’t always been as cheap as they are now, so if you were producing a play back in the day you might make cast members share a copy rather than each having his own." How would we know this based on the stimulus?

On the strength of assumptions, it is stronger to assume that the actor had access to Hamlet, rather than not. it is more reasonable that "The abridgement was prepared by a spectator of a performance of Hamlet." If we are going based on the stimulus:

First, the person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet.

• It is more likely to assume a spectator not to have a copy of hamlet than an actor who is in rehearsal and reading directly from a copy to know the lines. Even if the actor shares, they had a copy.

Second, the abridgment contains a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters, but a slipshod handling of all the other parts.

• This one does lean into the actor, but could lean more into the spectator since it is very common to assume an individual to be more likely to attach to one character and focus on there parts than others. Take for example the favoritism of the characters and lore of most superheroes and villains. When making an abridgement of the story, they would have a better rendering of what was said by their favorite character than other characters.

To me a clearer indication is the individual "did not possess a copy of Hamlet." Without outside knowledge it is more likely a spectator would not have a copy of Hamlet than an individual who had to read a script for hamlet would not have one. We can split hairs on the second one, but because of this marginality, it is clear that the first one is more likely a spectator would not have a copy rather than actor who needs to read hamlet to preform.