This was difficult.

Starting to make sense. I just need to make sure to remember these groups lol.

@KGonzalez I feel same way. I literally asked same thing last video! Maybe for more complex it will help. But Im also confused a bit with when I negate.

Okay so do I need to ALWAYS make sure to use lawgic for these or just retain the practice of identifying? I understand they may get complex and it will be best to work these out with lawgic, but could it be better to just train my brain to observe these?

@taylorstryker So with this set of conditional indicators (like unless) I think hes saying the rule is simply you must negate.

@BenjaminMcDaniel Im with you. I think my mix up is coming from realizing order of sufficient/necessary

@Hanifa Thank you....LOL

I struggled with this. Had to watch twice.

Makes sense mostly.

Okay so hold on. Essentially you're saying not to confuse negation with opposition because we do not want to make the mistake of ONLY looking at the opposite in an argument or premises which could lead to answering wrong (like thinking that crime definitely rose VS realizing it may have stayed on constant, been reduced, etc.??

I feel like I have been doing this BUT it really clicked in how this was broken down to lead us into a very simple formula and method to break down arguments!

The arrow is like a check valve!

So essentially the premises is not an assumption ever, it is the truth.

@EricPreneta well okay Q1 makes sense. I think the explanations are great but can add complexity to what intuition was providing. But still accept the required mechanical approach to be successful in the complex LSAT questions to come...

@CayleeJoanMcDougall right there with you. can only replay so many times LOL. going to try once more and then come back at later time!

@Creech yeah I just went back and also cannot figure that out.

I feel like knowing the type of question (and assume thats done with reading question & stimulus, helps reduce time in what you analyze. Like knowing not to over analyze looking for predicate when it's illustration like this?

@GDatria715 Also confused. If it requires an inference, is it to be assumed a weak argument or not true?

I almost got mad before I finished watching questioning why we are adding the modifiers back in! But yes, removing them for the core comparison is helpful and then add them back in later. I like this.

I thought it was just the cat likes milk. but I guess likes is not a modifier? Its core part of the predicate?

@Anthony.pardella@gmail.com I feel you dawg!

3/3 but I am nervous that I am deep into the structure so much so that I will ignore a blatantly easy answer. I noticed the word "since" and immediately thought that its a lead up to premisses. but the answer has nothing to do with if it is or is not. I dont know if I am making sense LOL

But how do you determine if it's true or not, who is making that decision? I understand the assumptions and what makes them true or false, or supports them being true or false. If it is possible to be true or false, does that simply make it count as false or unsupportive? If so - how can there be a scale for the assumptions themselves? it seems they are binary. I understand the argument itself can scale, but how can the assumptions?

1/5 Last two I was 4/5 and 3/5! = l

struggled with this....didnt realize how many referential there are!