Would it be beneficial to avoid 1st person language in the LSAT writing? I noticed that he used "I" and "We"-- I learned that using these words makes the writing less formal. Is that something that is universally implied, or is it specific to how I was taught?

I was about to comment the same thing. Glad to know that I am not the only one.

#feedback This may be included in lessons later one; however, I think it would be beneficial to give a real-time analysis of how someone would solve this problem while taking the test. I know that with practice, we will become faster at answering these questions-- but using the logic in these videos is quite time-consuming and will not be efficient while taking the test. This could maybe be involved in the "review" lesson?

I have been approaching the strengthen/weaken questions with a different approach than he has introduced in these lessons, and it has seemed to work out so far. For this question, I was able to get rid of answers if they seemed to focus on the premises or could possibly help the conclusion-- rather than note that they addressed the structural issues in the stimulus. I got C correct because it seemed to state an opposition to the conclusion. I have noticed this for the weakening questions -- that the answer choice cannot exist within the stimulus as it is stated.

Does anyone else think like this? I am worried that this thinking may not be as helpful as it has seemed to be so far...

#feedback I wish at the end of these explanation videos, he would show us in real time how he would solve these problems on the test. I find myself using this logic while doing the test, but it takes way too long, and I have not found a way to compress the explanation into 1 minute.

Hi,

It confuses sufficient and necessary. Since the second sentence is Answer B, but reversed, that makes it not correct. In the analysis, he states the analogy of dog -> mammal. If you say that all dogs are mammals, you are not able to switch it around to say that all mammals are dogs because there are other mammals. I hope that helps!

Me too!

#feedback

I do think this section would really benefit from visuals, either from graphs or a video.

It really helped me understand this concept using Venn diagrams. One large circle is "Almonds grown in California." Another circle that takes up around 90% of the first circle is "produced for domestic consumption" and another circle that takes up around 90% of the first circle is "require intense irrigation to produce." With these three overlapping circles, it would make sense that some foods produced for domestic consumption require intense irrigation to produce.

This was helpful! In this video he used how Oxygen is necessary for water BUT is not sufficient because it also needs Hydrogen.

He also used a causation example for sufficient. For example, a power outage caused computer crashes. The power outage is sufficient for causing the computer crash-- in that, it does not need any thing further to cause the computer crash. In comparison, it is not necessary that there is a power outage for the computers to crash-- they can exist seperate from each other.

I really struggled with this concept so here are some phrases that have seemed to help:

Sufficient: "is enough by itself." Being human is a sufficient condition for being a mammal. I would say "being human is enough by itself to be a mammal (it needs nothing else)"

Necessary: "must be." Hydrogen in necessary in water. I would say "hydrogen must be in water."

Let me know if I interpretted this correctly!

This is a great explanation! When reading that question, I assumed that it was a "trick" question since the qualifying phrase was "no statistical evidence." If this was in a real-life example and someone was trying to counter your argument with "there is no statistical evidence that what you are saying is true" -- this does not make your statement more true or more false; it is simply an observation.

There could be statistical evidence to prove the opposite of my argument, but since that is not provided, we will not know whether the stament is true or false. In opposition, like you said, new statistical evidence may be introduced in the future to prove your argument. Until either is explicitly stated, there is no proof for either position.