@RawanAbdulhaq What time do you sleep!! I tried 6:30 - 8:00 AM before, but I am mostly in person work and my job was (seasonally) busy recently. I am trying to rebuild that. Haha I love doing my study in cafes too!! but I think about the accumulation of $ spent on coffee but it helps romanticize studying

Chose B initially because I didn't assume that "cleaner environment" is some sort of benefit in the stimulus' world.

On a timed situation, I did not process how weak/unspecified/irrelevant C is. However, I caught it pretty easily in blind review

I got this right but purely out of common sense. So I still had to break it down in LSAT sense and it actually took me forever.

STIMULUS ANALYSIS

Conclusion: ought AND can is not always possible

Counterexample: "promise" (ought) AND cant

WHY D RIGHT

D does two things:

1) Confirming that promising creates a genuine "ought" (obligation)

2) Confirming that the obligation doesn't get cancelled just because fulfillment becomes impossible

It's like, when you owe someone and promised to pay them on Friday, but your cash was stolen Thursday night and lost all your money, your obligation to pay remains.

bullshit

Like any other Fast Track lessons, thank you for this! Questions 1-6 were straightforward to me, but not 7. I try to answer them as though timed before Kevin goes through it, so the weakness in ACs in 7th made me think about and look at it more closely compared to the other questions.

FLAW CATEGORY: GAMBLER'S FALLACY*

My wrong answer (AC) A

• In flaw questions, the conclusion is not where the flaw lives — the reasoning is.

• A is actually describing something that might be true - the conclusion IS bold and based on probability. But that's NOT a flaw in the reasoning: lots of valid arguments make prescriptive recommendations based on probability. The specific problem here is the misuse of averages, not the boldness of the conclusion.

• One tutor in the discussion also made an interesting point: is it really a "bold prescription" if it is a "high probability" that this big event happens? I want to be protected if it is likely to happen!

Correct (AC) C Reasoning

• The argument treats an average frequency as if it were a predictable schedule. Just because something happens on average every 100 million years doesn't mean it's "due" -- random events don't work on a timetable.

  Like saying "I've flipped tails 5 times in a row, so heads is due next." The coin has no memory and it will still be a 50% chance.

Lesson for next time

• On Flaw questions, always ask: "What is the bad move in the reasoning?" not "What is wrong with the conclusion?"

• Pay attention to the use of averages

* What is Gambler's Fallacy? The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken belief that if a particular random event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa). It assumes that independent events, like coin flips or roulette spins, "even out" over time.

FLAW CATEGORY: SCOPE SHIFT

Question Summary

• Micki's statement is about one person's action and its consequences. Sid responds by talking about the consequences of everyone believing that statement — those are two different things. Sid shifts from "consequences of the action" to "consequences of universalizing the belief."

Wrong Reasoning (AC) A

• (AC) A is saying that Sid uses the "grass would die" argument to disprove the "walking across the grass" itself.

• Sid isn't trying to prove that walking on grass is harmful. He's attacking Micki's reasoning by universalizing it.

Correct Reasoning (AC) B

• It captures the exact shift: Sid talked about the consequence of walking across the grass (grass damage) as though it were the consequence of everyone believing it's okay to walk.

@AgnesAlojado I would absolutely love to explore!

I just want to say how much these fast track videos are significantly more effective to me than the full modules!

Full modules has a lot of abstract concepts that my brain cannot retain. In comparison, going through the "lessons" via questions directly makes immediate connection between the logic concept and practical use.

Thank you, Kevin!

What is this?

@beneley2k LMAO

My own explanation:

Researchers announced recently that over the past 25 years the incidence of skin cancer caused by exposure to harmful rays from the sun has continued to grow in spite of the increasingly widespread use of sunscreens. This shows that using sunscreen is unlikely to reduce a person's risk of developing such skin cancer.

The research relies on time series data for incidence of skin cancer and use of sunscreens, and correlates both. We know that over the data period, sunscreen use has increased. 

As this is a weaken question, a good thing to ask (alternative hypothesis) given those "clues": What changed in the population with increasing incidence of skin cancer over 25 years? (age!)

PT132.S4.Q5 Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

A)  Most people who purchase a sunscreen product will not purchase the most expensive brand available.

Irrelevant. We don’t know the effectiveness of sunscreens across price ranges.

B) Skin cancer generally develops among the very old as a result of sunburns experienced when very young.

This meets our criteria of an alternative explanation because it tells about the changes in the population in question over the time period of the correlation, other than sunscreen use.

C) The development of sunscreens by pharmaceutical companies was based upon research conducted by dermatologists.

We don't know the population of sunscreens developed by pharmaceutical companies nor their effectiveness.

D) People who know that they are especially susceptible to skin cancer are generally disinclined to spend a large amount of time in the sun.

People protect themselves from the sun by hiding, which we don't know the population of. It doesn't tell us anything about the sunscreen's effectiveness. This does not affect the argument.  

E) Those who use sunscreens most regularly are people who believe themselves to be most susceptible to skin cancer.

People protect themselves from the sun by making sure they use sunscreen, which we don't know the population of. It doesn't tell us anything about the sunscreen's effectiveness. This does not affect the argument.

I got it correct but am i the only one that gets really anxious before submitting and when I get it right i’m like “Thank God”

#sotraumatized

I almost answered D but I felt like I was being tricked so I re-read everything and ultimately chose B! Below is my explanation:

The discrepancy between the stimulus' support and conclusion is the lack of comparison to another kind of sewage sludge, which an ideal of would cancel out the main characteristic of the subject. In this case, that characteristic should be the sewage sludge's concentration of heavy metals. The next thing to make sure is that this second version of the subject has, as much as possible, similar all other characteristics of the first/main version. Now, this alternative version must show the complete opposite of our main version's test result.

B meets these two criteria. uses a group that is free of heavy metals, but also has similar all other characteristics, making it the best version to compare our main version to. The test result was a complete opposite of the result from our main version: that it is generally not resistant to heavy-metal poisoning or antibiotics.

How does this compare to D? D provides an alternative explanation to the cause of antibiotic resistance, by saying that a sewage sludge with high concentration of heavy metal (our subject's main characteristic), generally has significant concentration of antibiotics. That is: A significant concentration of antibiotics do create antibiotic resistance.

Example

All non-caffeinated teas are relaxing. Most teas help with sleep. Therefore, most relaxing teas help with sleep.

Example:

Most senior-level staff in our office hold graduate-level degrees in Economics or Public Policy. Therefore, Samantha, who has a graduate degree in Economics, is likely to become a senior-level staff member.

Confusing Sufficiency for Necessity Example

It is true that infatuation can distract humans from their obligations. As such, LSAT takers under the spell of romantic infatuation are distracted from their studying. Over lunch, Sarah's friend group shared their frustrations over being distracted from studying for the LSAT. It must be that Sarah's friend group is under the spell of romantic infatuation.

aight imma diary my way to LSAT studying yall

I love seeing things in lawgic now!! I just gotta get faster :)

Not a student but looking for a study bud in manhattan too!

I feel more confident; therefore, I am more motivated to continue going through these lessons! Thank you for making it easier for me, 7Sage!

@KaviPious-Milnor Same thought!

Seek if there is a linking assumption between the premise and the support.

The tigers argument is a medium strength argument because there is no link between the 'mammals' and 'tigers.' While tigers are truly mammals in our world, this argument does not explicitly say it; therefore, it is ONLY MORE LIKELY to be true and not 100% true.

The Disney argument is strong because there are clear links between the options that Disney Vacation Club members have to do to get a Genie+fast pass and what Walt didn't do, cancelling out that other option as to why he got the Genie+ fast pass anyway. It is guaranteed to be true!

The Trash Bin argument is the weakest because there is a missing link between Mr. Fat Cat's behavior of knocking the bin and accessing fish/food within.