A way that helped me is thinking of it as a script..a story. The simplification or the domain part is the setting. Find the setting the entire conditional is taking place. Take that place and separate it. and allow the story (conditional) to continue EX:

Setting: In NYC in a building with 10+ units

Story: OpNo and 3+Ms --> R

If the stim is giving something outside the setting well then the rest doesn't follow because WE know the setting already where the story is taking place

---Please remember this is just a way to begin to understand this technique, not very conditional will have a place but it helps understand this specific example------

Commenting to be able to come back and find this thread.

I am late i know but it is more for myself or anyone passing through: We all feel this way.. but we have to buck up anyways because we decided we wanted to be more in life

---------------------------------------

Infer - Educated guess

i think it works best to think about it in the direction the context takes you. For the respiratory issue one, i said to myself "more likely than other types of issues" BUT the context isn't taking me in that direction. i TOTALLY pulled that from my butt. We don't know anything about other issues...just that THIS one is more likely if xyz happens.

It is saying (in simple terms) that when the concentration is above the norm for a long period, it is more likely to see respiratory issues

ok so based on the context we can guide ourselves to thinking:

• well if this happens and we get more issues... then we can say COMFORTABLY...there are more respiratory issues when concentration is above the norm THAN when it is not above the norm.

• WHY can we say this?

  • We know FOR sure there's more issues if it's above the norm. So what if we go crazy and think...what about NOT above the norm...we AREN'T saying less..we are walking a nice comfy line and saying just NOT above.

  • So therefore we can say...alrighty we see more reps issues THAN when it is not above.....because we already know we see more when it is above

You just have to follow the direction the context gives you. Direction is telling you south, go south.

Hope that made any sense lol

Personal opinion here. This entire lesson on grammar is not made to have you be 100000% in accurate in grammar. I feel this whole thing is here to get you comfortable just understanding how to take the most BASIC part of a sentence out... to help you better understand what you're reading. We are facing massive amounts of information every question. Boiling down what it means to its simplest form is the goal. Once you have that down, adding in the modifiers helps you get all that extra gossip and put it to use. I see hella people freaking on the specifics but if you have the concept down you are already doing better than when you started. Keep your head up and don't overthink it too much. A lot of the time you already FEEL what the sentence is about naturally, this lesson just helps u add a label to the intuition you already have.

this is just for me lol ignore:

The answer choice is stating that the author is presuming the absence would prevent but...the author never says that. They are just stating that more regulations aren't the solution i.e aren't the way to go. They never make an position towards no regulations at all, that is beyond the scope. Just that doing more of the same crap they're doing now just isn't working. Answer B pulled that out their butt basically. C. is giving you a real alternative as to why his thinking is flawed. It is more concrete.

Hi hi. Indicator words should never be taken as an ultimate if that makes sense. Most of the time we see them but we also see stuff like this. We cannot rely on indicator words alone for conclusions. I ask myself "In all this bs what is the author tryna tell me" and then to confirm with myself i ask "Is this conclusion i chose backed up by any premises in the argument?" If my answer is yes to both then its my conclusion. HOWEVER, that was mostly to start off till i got comfortable recognizing conclusions. Remember there are intermediate ones as well. This whole tests sucks lol

@wgresh i did the same thing. Here is what kinda what i figured out.

A: we are basically saying ANYTIME there is a machine of the same type, competition is bad. it's saying "all machines" in a way. The stim is ONLY referring to fax machines. We got NOOOOO idea if competition with other machines is automatically damaging for the industry itself. We ONLY know that with fax machines depending on each other is damaging. Yes, fax machines fall under this, but because of LSAT logic, we can't say ALL when the stem ONLY refers to 1 thing. Remember saying "some" and "not all" is the perfect opening for less objection. If i tell you some people suck you can agree but if i tell you ALL people suck, you'll be like "well my grandma is cool" In this case, we know about fax machines not all machines in the world.

B: Here we have an opening. SOME is saying "well sometimes this happens with machines that xyz"....we can put Fax machines in there comfortably. Instead of saying "ALL MACHINES THAT XYZ CANNOT HAVE COMPETITION BC BAD". The wider generalization is keeping it open. Maybe other machines have this problem or maybe they don't but SOME do and that some includes fax machines.

i feel like that didn't make sense but i tried.