How have you improved your score so quickly? I'm hoping to take the August LSAT but i'm still finishing the CC and idk if its possible to be ready for August. Congrats!!

#Question - Why do we ignore "the good life" part of the premise?

I wanted to clarify my understanding, as I did choose A, but in looking at the video and all the discussion comments, I’m now confused about why B is wrong. I didn’t pick it because (A) was stronger overall. But I don’t understand now why/how (B) is confusing sufficent - necessary? From my understanding:

Mistaking a Necessary for Sufficient: "If you are a human, you breathe. Therefore, if you breathe, you are a human."

• Why it's wrong: Breathing is a necessary condition, but it's not sufficient to prove you are human (dogs and cats breathe too). The argument assumes the presence of a necessary result guarantees the initial cause.

Mistaking a Sufficient -Necessary: "If you are a human, you breathe. Therefore, if you are not a human, you do not breathe."

• Why it's wrong: The rule states that being human is sufficient to guarantee breathing, but it doesn't say it's necessary.

But (B) negates necessary and then negates sufficient through the contrapositive - so why is this wrong if the correct formula is applied?

I'm confused by "justified" can't be the sufficient condition here? Why can't we just leave it as is? Is it because the second rule has justified in the necessary condition? Or are we just using common sense here that it seems like justified should be the necessary condition? #help #feedback

@RobertCarlson To clarify what you mean here for my understanding.... Basically, we need the "Should not play the joke" in the necessary condition, right? And because with the contrapositive, it lands on the sufficient side, it is incorrect. #feedback

I'm struggling with how not to treat this as an If --> Then statement because with this framework I only see one sufficent condition and then the necessary condition is that the reasonable expectations of the policy holder should take precedence. #help

I didn't take this to be a causal argument! I'm confused because I see the "if then" statement so I treated it as somewhat conditional

I don't understand when he says "that (P) could be all or a subset of these facts" (referring to the stimulus). #help #confused

Can someone explain how E would look like in lawgic?

Are we always supposed to get the contrapositive of group 3 and group 4 negations?

@Kevin_Lin So for group's 3 and 4 indicators when we negate either the necessary or sufficient we always need to contrapose it? Or can we just leave it as the negated form? #help

#help. I'm a bit confused by what he means with the facts fail to trigger the conditions. Are these conditions found in the AC's or in the Stimulus?

This seems like a SA question stem no?: Which one of the following, if assumed, most helps to justify the reasoning in the archaeologist's argument?

#Help. I Didn't pick C because it said "as it is anywhere else" I took this to be wrong since we have no idea what it is being compared against (like what type of city with what types or how many kinds of air pollutants, or if those even had soot). I feel like we are taught to look out for this sort of thing and I feel at times I use it and it doesn't benefit me. When it comes down to it - I do see how non of the other Ac's weaken so it must be C even if its not the perfect answer. - But could someone explain why the last sentence in C doesn't matter here for clarity.

@SavanahHoffstein This makes so much sense! Thank you!

Is the Causal Mechanism and the "third factor hypothesis" the same thing? #help

I'm so confused where the causal argument/claim is in here? And where is the correlation as well? I don't know why I found this so hard from the lessons standpoint but I did get it right just based off of general understanding of how to weaken the question. #help!

I'm confused by what this means: Do alternative explanations “counter” a correlation? Why or why not? #help

I'm confused by how Hyp 3: "A third factor" is this third factor the causal mechanism? Or is that just separate?

Hi! I'm confused how this is the case: Correlation can be evidence for causation. I feel like it wasn't explained very well in the video.

So is the "causation" otherwise known as the hypothesis in some of the stimuluses that we see? #help

Hi! I wanted to confirm my thinking- although it doesn’t have the LR tag - would this stimulus be a phenomenon - hypothesis?

@RobertCarlson This is a super helpful explanation! But I'm wondering (and something I struggle with) is how to know when or the language used to identify correlation? That's something that I keep getting confused by!

I'm really confused on how the "leaving a parking Space example" shows the first type of causal argument? There is no "one-off phenomenon" in that question from my understanding! Please lmk if anyone sees differently! Thanks!

I'm confused on how to see this as a causal argument? If any one has any tips that would be great!