all imma say is read up on what preponderance means ifykyk

SA has been a weak point of mine but Kevin's explanation here does a great job of pointing out that the conclusion brought in new ideas that were not mentioned in the premises of the argument, albeit mentioned in the contextual portion of it. I was always stuck trying to figure out how to relate the conclusion back to the premises AND the context where I should probably have been more cognizant of the fact that that's the whole point of SA: the correct AC is the one bridging that gap, proving the conclusion 100% true based on strictly the reasoning of the argument, not its context. Only 5:47secs into the vid so far Kevin is an LSAT gem.

Also, just discounting an AC for the reason it doesn't discuss the new idea mentioned in the conclusion is a good way to understand that it can't be right because it doesn't prove the conclusion 100% true. How can you prove something is 100% going to happen if you don't even mention that something or anything that entails it?

Don't make the oldest mistake in the book. You need to prove your conclusion 100% true. So you should be starting from the premises to get there. Any construction that starts with "If [conclusion] ... " is clearly incorrect because how can you prove something 100% true if you're acknowledging that it may or may not happen? In this case, we need to prove the salaries are fair, so the statement "if the salaries are fair" does nothing for us, it detracts from our mission of proving that "the salaries are fair" is 100% true because it doesn't have to be the case.

The exception to this ^ is that if the conclusion itself is a conditional and the point you have to prove 100% true is in the SC, then you need an answer that has that in the SC because it activates the conditional and proves it 100% true.

D is a fast elimination for Q4 because our mission remains the same: prove the conclusion 100% true. How can we do that? Well, we only have 1 premise that relates to the term mentioned in the conclusion and its a conditional, so if any AC is taking the NC from that premise and turning it into a SC - negated or not - we know it cannot be the right answer because it would not prove the conclusion 100% true. This is because in either scenario, the AC would convey info we already know or info that is irrelevant to proving the conclusion.

Has anyone figured any strategies for getting better on time? I find myself spending a good amount of time on the stim, but I seem to be spending too much time on the answer choices. Any advice on how to either quickly discount certain choices faster (with less doubt) or how to know when its appropriate to move on without analyzing the other answer choices when you think you have gotten the correct answer?

BRING BACK BAILEY