I felt the same way until I read the written explanation - A is giving us redundant information. We should have already kicked the idea that we have an interest in preserving certain species up into the domain.

It's not that A hurts/ has no relevance to the argument, but that we already have this information, so it does not strengthen.

What helped me choose C over B was that it sounded more like a rule

Before I even start this question, I want to acknowledge the drill title: "You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child"

#feedback I don't remember JY using this language in the lesson either

ugh I have to remember that words like "completely" are carefully chosen by the LSAT writers, not like how I throw them around in real life...

As for C it is only relevant if the premise meets the sufficient within the conditional statement

the campaign has no chance to suceed→/undertake new marketing campaign

We do not know if the campaign has a chance to succeed or not, so therefore, C is irrelevant.

The "overall position" of a company refers to its general standing or status within its industry, market, or the broader business environment. We can make a reasonable assumption that the company cares about its overall position, not just this individual product's success.

This would have been a SKIP for me on a real LSAT

I literally just wrote this in my notes from the last question, yet I still picked E...

"Beware! Wrong answers often have X Believes _ . This does not mean what they believe is true, just that X believes it..."

C is double baddd

Hi! I am sorry to hear that. My brain oddly had a challenging time with MC questions so I feel you....

For this question, the goal is to find a piece of support that, within the case of bacteria in sewage sludge, heavy metal → resistance to antibiotics (the actual statement is not must be true/valid, but this is how my brain thinks about it).

B is correct because in this scenario, the bacteria that live in sewage sludge /heavy metal and /resistance to antibiotics. This supports the argument because in the absence of heavy metal, given the conditions were generally consistent, there was no developed resistance to antibiotics, which leads me to think that heavy metal may contribute to the resistance to antibiotics.

yeah that question sucked

love to get the right answer, but it's daunting to imagine cutting my time down by 75%.....

do you ever watch a lesson video and then realize you were zoned out the whole time and then have to watch it over again.....

just to check- you cannot draw a valid conclusion from this argument, right?

A‑m→B←s→C

What lesson did we learn about ←s→ relationships between two necessary claims deriving from the same sufficient? I just clicked through a bunch of the curric but cannot find it.

can -m-> mean most or just many?

OMG I was kind of freaked out with #2 because my answer (S->/A->/R -> B and J) did not match the written answer, but then it did match the video! WHEW

I believe you are correct!

Overdue->Fined

18 O

_

18 F

In your second point - If we know Amy was fined, it may be because she had more than one overdue book but it may also have been because she was breaking a different library rule, has a parking ticket, etc....

Wondering if anyone can help me with #4

Only Italian plumbers can fly while wearing raccoon suits.

Indicator: Only

subject: Italian plumbers

Raccoon Suit -> Fly

/fly -> /Raccoon suit

Did I mess the grammar up here or is this a sentence that can be interpreted in multiple ways? I broke It down more like Q1

Same - I thought "rights" in the second half of the sentence was a referential

to "rights to have artistic heritage preserved"

Hi! I got this wrong too. The answer that the video gives makes me uncomfy but I think I understand. 100% chance I make this mistake again though.

The comparative statement is only within the Object Clause. I think what makes this question so confusing is that while all of the other comparative statements we have seen are (presumably) the author's argument, this one is just a clause within an overarching statement.

The way the video explained like a math problem where you have to do the work in the brackets first, and then you apply the information outside the brackets for the full understanding and context makes sense.

* mostly wrote this to help me solidify my own understanding :)

I feel like this could be a conclusion if there were a premise to support it. The issue is, when I ask " how, why or what can you tell me that supports this?" the statements that follow do not convince the reader of anything, they are just more bg information.

Think about all the things that are "wrong"- that is the superset aka the necessary

Intentionally misrepresenting something is just a small subset (sufficient), of all of the things that can be considered wrong.

The way you wrote it says: If you are wrong, then you intentionally misrepresented someone else.

That doesn't make much sense because you might have been wrong because you cheated, were a bully, the list goes on.

Since the answer did not translate to lawgic, I am not positive but this is what I had

Domain: consumers interp of language

Rule: Vagueness->/presume attp to deceive

Exception: Mans-large ben from dec

"anyone" is the sufficient indicator.