"it will feel like arithmetic" as if i didn't damn near fail high school algebra

EDIT: even after the explanation, this question still hurt my feelings

naur

@gobulldogs i refuse to belive this is a 1 star.... aint no way

fetish for wastewater is crazy... thanks for the giggle kevin

Q2 is worded so wildly that to be reading it on a Friday at 12:30am im cooked

how have i gotten other Qs wrong that have a way lower difficulty but got this one right in barely a minute

the two that i flagged, i got right & the two that i got wrong, i was confident in.... chat its been a rough one

@MaxThompson very helpful!!! thank you!

@Dylan_Rispoli this is super super helpful, thank you!!

@SuperCola06 consistently in the 60% range !! just means that there's room to improve (hopefully lol)

no because making it a game is like... i must get it right!!!! (by the last Q my brain felt like applesauce, thank you)

my brain is scrambled eggs... i just wanna talk to the LSAT creators who like double negatives so much (looking at you, Q5)

I got Q4 wrong because to me, the two sentences were acting as separate, independent statements.

I threw the argument (and subsequent reasoning from 7Sage) into Claude & here was the result:

One statement is offered as evidence for another:

None of the chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the original dyes.

and does NOT act independently:

Hence, the colors used by Michelangelo will be fully restored.

The claim about chemicals not affecting the dyes isn't just sitting there independently, it's being used to justify or establish the claim about full restoration.

Also, I read a lot of comments that people thought that Q4 wasn't an argument simply because it makes little sense (or no) sense -- and girl same. BUT! As Claude points out (and as JY has reviewed in an earlier lesson), not all arguments are going to be strong. In this case, while the author was intending to show a logical conclusion, they didn't really do a good job of doing so.

However, just because the argument is flawed, doesn't negate that the example isn't an argument at all. According to Claude:

"the premise only tells us the chemicals won't damage the dyes further; it says nothing about whether the chemicals can restore colors that have already faded or been obscured by grime over the centuries. "Won't harm" doesn't imply "will fully restore." That gap between premise and conclusion is precisely the kind of thing LSAT questions target once they've established that yes, this passage is indeed an argument."

@Maliikm slay claude <33

@prestonbigley759 bro is goated atp