Dropping why C is the answer for my visual learners

Got this in blind review and understood it. I am so SO proud I caught this issue. The error here is in the fact that congenial guests and G--->Congenial. Are NOT the same thing. One is a conditional relationship, the other suggests something about a certain group of people.

I'm a bit confused as to how we are allowed to link these two together. One says consider conflicting evidence IMPARTIALLY. The other said consider ALL IMPORTANT EVIDENCE conflicting with that position. How are these two concepts the same to be linked??

@nadinersuliman800 I'm just using my intuition. Honestly "Lawgic" makes this VERY difficult. I spent a lot of time with "Lawgic" only some of the very difficult questions are helped by that like 90% of questions you don't need to diagram

This question genuinely made NO SENSE. I sat here for 30 minutes staring at the stimulus trying to diagram it so my brain can get it.

This is incorrect because it does NOT guarantee that the consumer didn't use the watch in another way. We don't know how long the watch in a department store worked for. What we know from the stimulus is what happens if it stops working the next day. So this doesn't tell us anything about wether or not the consumer intended to use the watch the way it was supposed to or not because of this. The sufficient condition in B isn't triggered for us to get to that necessary condition to be able to utilize that to fill the gaps here. I hope this makes sense, that's how I eliminated B.

You actually don't even need to do all this reasoning. If you read the first sentence, you can just see it's irrelevant. We are looking for the gaps and that doesn't fill them in a NA question.

A tricky one! If you don't catch the words "reasonable standard" then you won't be able to see that the condition is missing in what follows and for it to be reasonable, the other condition must also be met! Tricked me with C, but I came back and caught this instantly!!

I understood this question correctly in the stimulus. I just couldn't identify it was a sufficiency necessity error. I became increasingly focused on how this isn't an accurate argument form and why we couldn't draw that conclusion as the point of error, instead of looking at what went wrong and where.

This makes ZERO sense. We never affirmed the necessary condition. When I diagrammed this in logic, I diagrammed it this way:

Terry

B<-S->FC

G-->FC

B<-S->G

I identified that the flaw here wasn't a necessity sufficiency one, but one where terry didn't understand the possibility of Bad intersecting into FC, while good was inside of FC and not necessarily into the bad intersection???

JY's explanation sucked, looking at Mike's version

This question made no sense to me. I hate how the LSAT expects you to know which assumptions you're allowed to make and which ones you aren't and the reasoning for it is, "oh just because you are supposed to do that for this question" or "no you can't do that for this question." The answer choice in A conflates government for politicians. When are we allowed to conflate the two, when does it become a problem worth crossing an answer choice out on?? The stimulus was talking about politicians and the answer choice in A was talking about gov action...

I get this. C was worded EXTREMELY weird, so weird that I thought it was wrong for sure.

Question is cracked out they all sounde EXACTLY the same.

What the absolute fuck was this

I thought E was correct because the thought experiment uses the reasoning of "If the book were very popular, one could reasonably conclude that it gave people pleasure and therefore that at least some of what is written in the book is not true." --->Thus, if we sever the link, popularity does NOT get us to some of what is written in the book is not true, and if that happens. We can say the original claim cannot be true, because we severed the link to get to it.

Question gave me an anuerysm

This is an AMAZING question. It's hard but VERY VERY incredibly doable once you understand the some, all, negation relationships!! Under a time crunch I chose A because it looked like it matched the words, but the LSAT often does that with these question types. I was tricked like this before too, when I realized some is another way of saying not all.

Umm nobody chose A, what do you mean thats the attractive wrong choice. E was picked as the bait

If you made this mistake, negating quantifiers and visiting the lessons on defining quantifiers would be productive. I am gonna rewatch those tomorrow and make fresh notecards to use as crutches as I keep practicing until it becomes automatic.

This question preys on your ability to properly understand what "unlike big budget films", small-budget films never attract mass audiences. This doesn't mean big-budget films ALWAYS do. The negation of never here is AT LEAST SOME, and thats what applies to BBF. This initially tripped me up and I made that error, which made me choose A. But upon revisiting this, I was able to see that error VERY QUICK. Once you can differentiate that you see why A is NOT the answer and why C is.

Revisiting this one

Update, I figured it out:

My point of confusion: I eliminated A because I thought it required the assumption that the pythons appearing fine is WHY the disease is difficult to detect in its early stages. I was having a hard time seeing how that was any less of an assumption than B, where I assumed that African-hatched pythons are more susceptible to the disease, which would explain why a greater proportion of them have it.

BUT the difference is answer-choice strength.

A says “MAY appear fine.” That is an incredibly weak claim. The stimulus tells me the disease is difficult to detect in its early stages, so it is completely reasonable to infer that an infected python MAY appear fine/not obviously diseased during that period. A is NOT saying that appearing fine is definitely WHY the disease is difficult to detect. It is only saying that this may happen.

B is WAY stronger. It says African-hatched pythons ARE more susceptible to the disease. The stimulus only tells me that a greater proportion of African-hatched pythons HAVE the disease. I cannot turn that into a definitive explanation for WHY they have it at a higher rate. Maybe they are more susceptible, but maybe they are exposed to the disease more often, or there is some completely different explanation [maybe just better detection by scientists there].

So basically:

A: Difficult to detect early → infected python MAY appear fine. ✅ B: Higher proportion has disease → African pythons ARE more susceptible. ❌

I was treating A's “may” as if it said “are/will.” THAT was my disconnect. Both answers made me feel like I was adding something, but A only adds a possibility supported by the stimulus, while B adds a definitive explanation that the stimulus never establishes.

I eliminated A here because it requires the assumption that appearing fine happens and that's why there is a harder time detecting in the earlier stages. Having a hard time seperating how this is any less of an assumption than B where the assumption is that Pythons are more susceptible to the liver disease in Africa than NA which explains why the proportion of diseased pythons in Africa is higher than NA.

How is B eliminated?? IKt says MAY BE CORRECTED. That doesn't mean it has to. May is in the case the archaic word IS OBVIOUS ERROR. I'm genuinely so confused. May makes B possible

I spent all day trying to do this yesterday, and it was NOT clicking when I tried using the 7Sage explanation. I came back to it today, used my own reasoning, and it clicked. The reason it was SO difficult is because my setup and 7Sage’s setup were pretty fucked. If we set it up this way, it is MUCH EASIER:

1) The principle people should follow: /Dissatisfied + Accept yourself 2) Happiness → Personal Excellence or Personal Change

Conclusion: The principle sucks

That is ALL you need. You don’t need to negate the principle for the conclusion. That genuinely confused the fuck out of me because then I was trying to link up the conclusion with parts of the principle and the answer choices, and they DON’T link cleanly. You JUST NEED TO INTUITIVELY understand what the conclusion means.

Let’s evaluate each answer choice now using the framework above.

A: This is incorrect simply because it confuses sufficiency and necessity. Just because you met one part, “Personal Change,” does not mean happiness is the only thing that explains it through sufficiency. There are infinite sufficient explanations that could explain that outcome.

B: This IS correct. Let’s work it out: If you are /dissatisfied [in other words, it is implied that you accept yourself as you are]—notice how this links directly back to the principle in 1): “/Dissatisfied + Accept yourself”—then, according to B, you are LESS LIKELY than others to pursue personal excellence.

If we look at 2), we know that pursuing personal excellence is a NECESSARY condition for genuine happiness. It's not the only one, but it is one of the two. Personal Excellence OR Personal Change/

Therefore, we finally have some basis for the conclusion. If you are /dissatisfied and accepting yourself, and that makes you less likely to pursue something that is NECESSARY for genuine happiness, then we have a reason to say that this principle is a bad one if the goal is happiness. The principle makes people less likely to pursue a necessary condition for happiness.

This is a VERY WEAK LINK to the conclusion, but nonetheless, it MUST BE TRUE for the argument to work. It is weak because if you are less likely to pursue personal excellence, that tells us nothing about the likelihood of personal change (which has an OR separation, telling us this can also be used as necessary to get happy). HOWEVER, it is still a weakening link that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. That’s the annoying thing about NA—the assumption doesn’t need to strongly prove the conclusion. It can provide the tiniest bridge the argument needs.

It’s almost like saying, “For bananas to grow, it is necessary to have a tool.” “Tool” is so ridiculously broad and abstract that the connection initially feels useless, but that doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t necessary. NA answers can be extremely weak/general while still providing a link the argument requires.

This is exactly why this problem gave me a brain aneurysm, but looking at it like this helped me. I hope this helps anyone who was struggling with this problem the same way I was!!

The other three are very easy to eliminate.

C is incorrect: We have no info on genuine confidence. It has no relevance to anything and doesn't link with anything either.

D is incorrect: Justified in feeling content is irrelevant.

E is not correct: Painful to obtain??? Yeah bye bye.,

Honestly an alternative way of doing this is just POE C,D,E and then confidently POE out A and choose B even if you didn't understand it, that is the approach I would take on a timed exam because this was really hard to unpack

WOOOOOW. Shares her opinion. I didn't think that meant she agreed with the opinion. I thought the phrase meant that she made an announcement of what her opinion was on the issue, not that she AGREED on the issue.