I got it correct, although I was wonder why the use of 'all' in answer choice (C) is not strongly supported?

For this question specifically, is the use of 'all' not fitting for answer choice (C)?

The stimulus states that "Storytelling appears to be a universal aspect..."

Does universal not imply all? The use of 'all' somewhat guided me to choose (C).

4/5

For #2 I was between B and D, but I changed the answer to D last minuet.

@SkySerenityX7 Got it right too, but yea the answer didn't seem as clear as the others. I feel like there were more attractive answer choices than the other questions.

Is this the correct structure?:

A causal argument consists of premises/phenomena (cause), effect (target phenomenon), and a hypothesis (conclusion).

So the point this lesson is trying to make is to think of a prediction as an experiment to check a hypothesis.

I'm sort of confused on how this would play out in an LSAT question, because you're technically not supposed to bring in outside knowledge or assumptions from the real world into test questions.

I guess on a real question we could make a prediction or assume an outcome of an experiment, although if the stimulus does not give any evidence for this prediction, then it doesn't seem to help in evaluating the strength of the hypothesis.

2/3

For Q1 I looked back in my notes to remember that:

many = some = at least 1

(the lesson stated it was ok to think of many = some for the LSAT)

Once I saw this relationship it made the answer easier to find.

For Q3 I was considering (B), but then I remembered that some does not have an upper boundary so it could technically mean that number is equal to all. Since the stimulus did not give exact numbers for each group we can't conclude which group has more than the other.

Without mapping it out I feel like I would've interpreted the first and last statements differently.

Mapping it out made it easier to find the answer. I only mapped the last sentence because it began with 'Only if,' which was more clear for me.

The last statement converted into Lawgic is H —> /SFP, which ultimately reads as answer choice (E):

If people are happy, [then] they do not have serious financial problems.

Something I thought of was: if the first or last statement was removed from the stimulus could everything still follow? If they essentially come to the same conclusion did the stimulus require both sentences?

5/5

I didn't exactly choose the same symbols to represent each concept as the video but still got them right.

I also feel like it's just easier to choose the concept that follows the conditional indicator as the sufficient condition.

So for group 3 indicators, is it always true that the contrapositives will have the same logical meaning regardless of which concept you choose to negate?

For this example:

When zombies attack New York City, the real estate market will crash.

If the two concepts are switched, would the same logic follow?

For example:

The real estate market will crash, when zombies attack New York City.

So is it true that regardless of the order of concepts the logic will stay the same because of the conditional indicator (in this case 'when')?

@DamianoVigneri I don't believe that is the case. Answer choice (E) does not use absolutes such as "in every situation," "every time," "all the time," or "always."

It mentions, "People tend to...more often..."

Each of the 3 statements proved this because they all have the same theme, where people think how they look and behave is being noticed by others more than what is actually the case.

In the first statement: The students overestimated how many could tell they were lying.

Second statement: Teammates noticed less often than the players expected.

Third statement: Only a small fraction actually noticed, contrary to the students expectations.

This is what (E) is saying. It mentions the tendency (people believing their appearance and behavior are noticed by others more often) compared to what is actually the case (people think this happens more often than it actually does).

@TcBuzz I don't believe it reads the same as the original sentence.

The original sentence states:

The fat cats learned to harmonize and took over the world.

But your version removes the word "learned," which if I am not mistaken, would be the verb in the first predicate.

I think your version makes sense although it removes context from the first predicate.

I thought Question 3 was not an argument for two reasons:

1. The instructions said that "...some questions might not present an argument."

2. The last sentence mentioned "...if railroad is going to be a successful business..."

I noticed the conclusion indicator, although it seemed like it introduced new information. The first sentence mentions "Train service suffers..." which may not correlate with it being "...a successful business...".

Can a train service still operate at an inconvenience but still be a successful business? If the train is consistently late by 10 minutes each day, will the commuters using the train really stop using it totally or will they just adjust their schedule?

I know these are assumptions but I thought it wasn't an argument because I didn't initially connect a train service suffering correlating with it being a successful business model.