@ArcherHeeren Yes. I believe it useful not only as practice, but getting it correct through your way of thinking can be beneficial in making the problem make more sense in a breakdown, than J.Y.'s videos.

personally, I believe he goes into too much depth or over analyzes some things that end up making the breakdown more convoluted than it needs to be, but nonetheless that is his job.

@coolcatsandtheirfunkystats If it is just a restatement of a Premise alone, then yes.

But if the premise is: Because i go on walks

and the Con is: I clear my head

it is quite possible that an AC for a SA question could be:

• going on walks clears a person's head (this is a restatement of the premise and connects why going on walks supports the conclusion of clearing my head)

@AutonomousTacticalTheory I was the same way, but starting to put it together.

I also believe that these Questions are ones that involve practice and seeing multiple breakdown videos to the point where it is intuitive.

I believe he mentioned it earlier, in that, some questions don't strictly follow logically form and will require some smaller bridge builder in the connections between premises and other premises/conclusions.

• Like the previous module using bi-conditionals or this one using less formal logic and more connecting the missing link.

Just my opinion based on experience.

@aleiapierre123 the part you mentioned about the domain is applicable to real life.

for example:

• if you are at an airport and your bag gets taken over to the side for some reason, you will comply with the officer and allow them to access your bag, under the reasonable assumption that there is nothing to hide, meaning, even though they confiscated your bag (by taking it from the conveyor belt) you still consent to them looking in the bag.

• and for the operations of business, the difference is simply the belief it was used for business operation and the computer was known to be typically used for operations are thinking/believing something (like bigfoot being real) and knowing something (like the sun will rise in the east) are different from each other.

@wuyongxiao257 Terrence is not the author of the stimulus. That is why the claim refuting Terrence's claim is the actual Conclusion.

that conclusion, "he is mistaken", is supported by the remaining sentences and explains why terrence is incorrect in his assessment.

@joymartinez483178 because it is not conditionally stated.

The second sentence asserts that even if we fail care for the environment, the admin. can still be successful.

• And how can we know the admin. can still be successful?

Because of the first sentence:

• ES + PILS -> Successful

@josue1climaco (E) is tricky because it uses similar language.

However, the difference is:

• meli brings about a possible solution for saving the Bighorns.

• the answer choice writes it as if it is the only solution for saving Bighorns.

Hence, this is why we say it is not supported by Meli.

• And to go a step further, sam does not mention limiting mountain lions' population, so this answer choice would also be unsupported from at least one view point to begin with.

@paulding77 yes but its unlikely that will be the lawgic translation of the answer choices available of the LSAT

@RyanAlexander

Question 3, for example, says "no pilots are blind"

• this infers, and it will sound weird but, "no (all) pilots are blind"

• basically claiming that "if one is a pilot then you are not blind"

So, we need to show it is not the case that subset (pilots) is not encapsulated, at all, by the superset (blind)

• Original: subset (pilots) is not encapsulated, at all, by the superset (blind),

• Negated: so, if we say "one is a pilot and is blind" (P and B), then the subset (P) is intersecting in some form with superset (B).

• Negated (2): that is also why we can say "some pilots are blind", since "some" implies at least one pilot that is blind. (P <- s -> B).

I'm not sure if that is the exact way to approach the question, but thinking of it as not intersecting, in this case, can help see how having two different answers can explain the same phenomenon:

• Pilots (subset) intersecting with Blind (superset)

@gabahahaha

• think of "some" and "many" as just a quantity of something

• think of "most" as a proportion of something

  • think of "some" and "many" as the same under the world of LSAT (since the test will not trick you in the difference between "many" and "some")

@ConqueringLSAT no, because the word "some" must mean "at least one"

knowing the rule is that it must include "at least one", there is no limit to the specific number of a group could be doing a specified action, like reading.

@sserota i was thinking the same thing.

Wizards cast spells

Witches cast spells too

you could even say preachers cast spells (Reach)

@anjjredd answers on tests can be contrapositives

hence, why its important to breakdown and understand them

@ktacklesthelsat no because the point of the test is to see how good you are at pattern recognition.

• law schools don't care how much you know about, for example, how the weather is affected by one thing or another.

@gevver I always use the "cat and mammal" example combined with the indicator when im confused.

• remember that replacing the context does not matter

• you can put "x" for the first concept and "Y" for the second too

example:

archaeologists are lead experts in dinosaurs if they have completed their certification in unearthing fossils

"if" is the sufficient indicator

Lawgic translation:

completed certification -> archaeologists are lead experts

CC -> ALE

• this is the same form of the argument for example:

they are mammals if they are cats

• "If" is the sufficient indicator

Lawgic translation:

Cats -> mammals

C -> M

hope this helps.

@MayaLiddell No, because if you say "businesses should adopt policies" would mean any policy. free coffee policy, wear hats to work policy, etc.

also, 'Businesses should adopt policies" is the first half of the full sentence "Businesses should adopt policies that facilitate parenting" which can be tricky to read with the double coma in between expressing an example of such a parenting policy.