My new LSAT mantras are now: "Stick with your gut, your gut is right" very dissapointed that I gaslit myself into thinking the testwriters were trying to trick me

Kevin cannot hide his class consciousness even for a second

While I always appreciate the detailed breakdowns of why wrong answers are wrong, and the delving into conditional and causal reasoning, grammar parsing, and unpacking the other intricacies of the syntax, I wonder if it can be unhelpful sometimes. I feel that, before even unpacking the answers many can be eliminated just with a surface level analysis spurred on by the question: "Does the stimulus even mention this?"

LSAT writers take advantage of our instinct to supplement the little (often confusing) information contained within the question stimulus, with our own background knowledge and assumptions (though this CAN be helpful.. for example if you already knew that sharks have a skeleton composed of cartilage and not bone.) Though, more often than not it's actually terribly unhelpful.

What I find most helpful when reading the question stimulus if to FORGET all other background information, and remind myself that really the only information needed to correctly answer the question is contained within it, and then move forward from there.

Could it be helpful, for modus ponens (and other arguments hinging on a certain set of circumstances then setting into motion more circumstances) consider the reality presented by the premises to be the individual we are assessing, just like how we assess whether or not Garfield is a member of the cat set.

For example:

- If new restaurants open downtown, then quality of life will improve for downtown residents

New restaurants open downtown, therefore quality of life improves

is the same as

Reality is a member of the set of instances where new restaurants opened downtown, therefore quality of life improves for downtown residents.

or to use a different argument

- All cats are mammals

Garfield belongs to the set cat, therefore Garfield is mammal

is the same as

Garfield satisfies the condition of being a cat, therefore Garfield is a mammal

Is this thought experiment just confusing? In assessing the arguments from this perspective, how are sets and conditions any different. I don't really see how modus ponens and a categorical syllogism can be substantially different, unless the content of the argument is a factor in classifying the type of logic rather than just the base form. I am not a logician, so I really don't know.

If we changed the wording in answer choice A from "Because, several of the candidates........" to "Although, several of the candidates......" could this then become an answer that would reconcile at least some of the discrepancy exhibited?

I understood the students "preference" to mean that there are other (perhaps more important) factors the students might consider when choosing their university president. However, I understand that I smuggled the assumption that the students did in fact have other criteria in mind that might have overridden their want for a president with experience when I chose answer A.

GO HOME PAT!

I find the link between the stimulus and principle incredibly tenuous. Is it a correct understanding that there really is no (or a very weak) causal link between small spots and vulnerability to predation presented??? The stimulus merely presents the phenomenon of small spottedness and the ability to avoid the detection of predators as coincident and not necessarily related or causal phenomenon.

Of course the correct answer is correct because it is the most correct answer choice. But it can be argued that the connection between the principle and the stimulus is tenuous at best since it requires the (easy to make) assumption of an earlier implied causal relationship