The people arguing for a three month summer vacation take tradition to mean “what we have always done” which in this case was to take three months off. The reason isn’t important.

The stimulus takes traditions to mean “the original reason why we do the things that we do”. They don’t care what we do: they care why we do it.

So the original reasons for our actions aren’t always important. This argument would be strengthened by a principle that said that the original reasons for our actions should be important.

link: https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-6/logical-reasoning-2/q-25/

40 seconds in and im already annoyed the male speaker is mumbling incredibly low. so frustrating having to waste time on videos like this...#feedbackbutdotheyevensearchandreadthishastag?

her explanation is weak and unclear...

poorly explained...

After wasting 8:14mins of my life, I reflected on my own why I got this wrong, the stimulus, and the correct answer. so, super lowkey, and truthfully, thanks. Here's new perspective I got:

-how would eliminating US quotas on imports effect production? It'd force the US to WANT to produce. production is linked to profit. the more they make, the more they make $$. if they keep quotas it could continue pressure that forces them to underperform (no belt to be spanked with for not working hard)

-why are Japanese manufactures mentioned but none other? - we need to expand the scope of her argument and ask whether competition can come from other countries. this leads to david's reasoning..

-He ignores her point, and instead adds new information (he does not attack, but instead steers in a new direction). the thing for us to solve here however, is the inference. what can we infer from david's premises? Whether the US should have quotas too due to global competition.

no video but try this: https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-61/logical-reasoning-1/q-24/

lol, nah for real. Here is something that is MUCH MUCH simpler than this convoluted ahh explanation.

https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-62/logical-reasoning-2/q-18/

Bro is so confusing for absolutely no reason.

That’s a great explanation. Especially because when he goes over why C is bad, he selectively does not discuss “probably” from the stimulus…or maybe I am missing something there .

I got this right and it was absolutely by thinking who tf is pat.

Ain’t no way homegirl took 40 mins to think this out…

The explanation for C insufficiently describes how “all” most strongly relates to the stimi, imo.

You have failed. force is not with you.

im cooked -_-

#feedback this is my third video into my first wave of blind review and honestly a bit disappointed in the video lessons, ngl...Im not finding the speedy explanations, hard-to-understand writing, and run-on explanations/tangents too useful. the replies have been helping

much more instead.

Giving benefit of the doubt that the upcoming videos i watch will be better.