@silkiestangel850 I agree that the "only" word is too strong, but I also think that there is another major issue with option D ... All we know is that visual technique people are less aware of their surroundings. We are not told when/how they become more aware, so this option is merely consistent with the stimulus.

my biggest takeaway from this question is the importance of grammar parsing in getting rid of distractor and trap answers

what originally threw me off was the "all cultures" in answer choice C; it seemed like a pretty strong claim to draw based on the stimulus. But compared to the rest of the answer choices, I now see that it is the best.

I think these kinds of questions are a good example of the importance of ONLY drawing from info in the stimulus and avoid giving into outside knowledge

@sapalmeri I had a similar thought process

For those who might have been led astray by incorrect answer choices, I think one of the points made in the video is helpful.

The final statement about expanding the program is not the core logic of the argument. The center of the argument is causal (parents teaching students causes better than average school performance).

Also, for those who were questioning the ideal experiment lessons, the purpose is to apply that kind of thinking to these kinds of strengthen/weaken questions. If we can read the stimulus and quickly think of ways to poke holes in the conclusions, these kinds of questions will start to click.

@GabrielaH I'm still moving through the lessons, but I think it might have something to do with identifying possible explanations for a phenomenon, or identifying weaknesses in a conclusion

I think the point of this exercise is to retrain our brains to not jump to hypotheses to explain phenomena in the stimulus. In real life, we often conflate correlation with causation (see the sushi example), but on the LSAT, we cannot do that.

@jzimo02 This makes sense because each premise is building on the past one. Take, for example, the running argument

high altitude --> less oxygen --> increased blood cell count --> more fit --> victory

high altitude and less oxygen are much more closely related than being at high altitude and being fitter are.

@LarissaStrong I'm still moving through the curriculum, but I think that sounds exactly right.

@02kimask and @bappel To put it more simply, if the second survey included plants AND animals, then we could argue that developments had, at best, no effect on park wildlife, or at worst, a negative impact.

If the developments introduce some kind of invasive plant species (like kudzu, an invasive weed) into the park, the new survey could be including all the new invasive species. That would be bad for the park.

Another point about your comment that E doesn't necessarily weaken the argument. If interpreted in some ways, that might be true, but the question is asking us to pick the choice that most strengthens. So even if you read E as neutral to the argument & its premises, it would still be the incorrect answer.

Hope this helps.

@danjpeach96 Thank you!

@BoluwatiwiAlabi The "many people" part is kind of irrelevant for this question. What matters is that each of the participants got a certificate, and each = all.

If you treat "many people" like group X, it might make more sense.

Each of the people in group X who participated got a certificate.

@RoseL Thank you! I also just revisited, and it clicked!

@mhenwohl I think you're right here. I don't think writing this out into lawgic would be helpful

@gbeeven In these negation lessons, we are not talking about the claims themselves, but the relationship between them.

The contrapositive of a statement is the logical equivalent, and that's why we can't take the contrapositive of "some" and "most" statements.

For example, take this claim: Some cats that belong to George are shy.

"some" means that at least one cat is shy (maybe all, maybe half, etc.)

In lawgic this looks like: GC ← s → shy

If we were to try to take the contrapositive, it would look like this: /GC ← s → /shy

This means that some of George's non-cats are not shy, but this has nothing to do with the original claim. We are not talking about George's hypothetical non-cats, and we never said anything about the non-shy ones. All we are saying is that some cats are shy. That's all we know.

In the case of a simple if, then statement, we can take the contrapositive.

If a cat is shy, then it belongs to George. ... S --> G

If a does not belong to George, then it is not shy. /G --> /S

Now, what if we were to negate this relationship?

OG statement: Some cats that belong to George are shy.

Negation: It is not the case that some cats that belong to George are shy.

Lawgic: GC ← s → S .... GC --> /S

• here we are negating the intersection between George's cats and being shy. If there is no intersection, then it is impossible for George's cats to be shy.

Hope this helps to clear up how negation is different than contrapositive.

@gbeeven Negation of a relationship between two claims is not the same thing as taking the contrapositive of a concept.

The contrapositive of A --> B is /B --> /A...these two statements are logically equivalent.

The negation of A --> B is that just because A happens, that does not necessarily mean B has to happen.

Example: To pass the bar, one must be a lawyer.

Negation: It is not the case that to pass the bar, one must be a lawyer.

Lawgic: pass bar --> be lawyer

pass bar and /be lawyer

If we are going from a stronger to a weaker claim, then it can be reasonably inferred.

@Hfa I agree with what you said. If X and Y were referring to a binary argument (e.g., if cats or dogs are the best pet, then that statement would not be possible).

If the majority/most people (51% or more) think dogs are better, then the vast majority of people cannot think cats are better. It would have to be some.

Maybe using numbers makes this easier:

100 people were surveyed

51 people think dogs are better

that means that (at the max), it is possible that 49 people think cats are better. 49/100 is not most, and definitely not the vast majority. So, it would be some.

@Hfa For a "most" claim, there will always be a larger set because the lower limit is more than half

• EX: Most dogs are pets.

  • if there are 20 dogs, then at the MINIMUM, 11 are pets

    • it is possible that all are pets but not guaranteed

    • is it impossible for 10 or fewer to be pets

For a "some" claim, the lower limit is much broader. "Some" only means AT LEAST ONE, maybe half, maybe 3/4, maybe all.

• Ex: Some dogs are pets.

  • if there are 20 dogs, then at the MINIMUM, 1 is a pet

    • it is possible that all are pets, half, 1/3, etc

    • it is impossible for none to be pets

Hope this helps!

@lagata I don't think that assumption would be reasonable in this case. The purpose of argument by analogy questions is to test your ability to identify a difference between the two items being compared. Let's imagine that the other magazine the stimulus is making suggestions for is Magazine B.

All we know is that since the anthology pays off the Brick Wall Review's operating expenses which is offered to support the argument that Magazine B should do the same.

An analogy relies on a comparison of two things, and if Brick Wall Review brings in writers that have not already been published, then it can no longer be equated to Magazine B. Further, if outside writers are brought in, it's no longer an anthology. The alternative sales are irrelevant; it's about the difference now created between two previously like things.

@SeanWolfe I'm still new to these strategies as well, but I'm starting to develop a strategy.

After I read the question and skim the stimulus I assess if it's something I can figure out with intuition, or if I need to diagram it out.

For the first question, I lost track of what I was reading, so I stopped and diagramed. On question 3, I was able to figure it out without writing anything down.

Sometimes diagramming is necessary, but the goal is to understand what the question is actually saying and fall back on the lawgic translation when dealing with really complex or abstract ideas.

@vareniki.everyday Thank you!

I'm still having trouble with this example: Mastering conditional logic requires some amount of memorizing conditional indicators.

I keep wanting to say that memorization is the sufficient condition...can someone please explain why it is the necessary condition?

@YamiMoreno Yes! Because if the negation is that farmers DO know their income, then the reverse is that the DO NOT know their income.

It might help to look at this example by swapping the idea that was originally affirmative.

We know that "until" signals the negate, sufficient rule, so we can say that tax returns are NOT calculated/submitted --> farmers do not know their income. (/B --> A)

Take the contrapositive: farmers do know their income --> tax returns ARE calculated/submitted

(/A --> B)

now compare this to the FIRST response we did. The conditional statements are logically equivalent:

If farmers know their income for a given calendar year, then tax returns are calculated and submitted following April. (/A --> B)

is the logical equivalent to

If tax returns are not calculated and submitted, famers do not know their income. (/B --> A)