I swear, it's always these early 100 PTs that throw me off.

Good luck!

Question Type: MC

MC: "For a meeting at the company to achieve maximum productivity, then, it needs to have a clear time frame and be no more than 30min long."

Lawgic: maximum produc > clear & max 30min

My Answer Choice: A

Why: Fell for the oldest trick in LSAT...confusing sufficiency and necessity.

if max 30min & clear > maximum produc

Correct Answer: C

Why: Rephrased the actual conclusion.

Max Produc Only If clear & max 30min

Max Produc > Clear & max 30min

Error Type: Choice Evaluation

Currently going through all the MC questions.

Hopefully this helps!

Question Type: Main Conclusion

Main Conclusion: "Difference between cameras in this respect [advertise resolution of lenses] are irrelevant for practical photography"

My Answer Choice: B

Why: "Apart from diff in resolution, there is no practical difference among modern cameras..."

1. "Apart from diff in resolution..." is saying that there diff resolutions have an affect on quality of the image that they produce...this is directly contradicting our main conclusion. We want an answer choice that says REGARDLESS of resolution diff it WONT have an affect on practical photography.

2. This is also a over-generalization. Camera's could have practical diff that affects the quality OUTSIDE of resolution...such as contrast, aperture quality, autofocus handling, ect...

Correct Answer: C

Why: "Advertised diff among cameras in the resolution of their lenses have no practical bearing on camera's relative quality as a photographic tools."

This a closer representation of our main conclusion. That the advert resolution is irrelevant for practical photography.

Error Type: Choice evaluation

@miadiscipio

So you're talking about two different concepts that visually look similar.

Contrapostive: Rephrasing of conditional statement that does NOT deny it.

Negation: Denying the conditional statement.

We'll use an example to flesh these two out.

Conditional Logic: A > B

Every instance of A there is B.

Contrapostive: /B > /A

Every instance of not B there is no A. Logically the exact same as the original statement.)

Negation: /(A > B)

Not every instance of A will there be B.

Negation: A <s> /B

At least one instance of A there is not B (some lower boundary is one).

How is this applicable? Off the top of my head you get some passage about how A > B but the auther disagrees with this conditional statement being true. Then you're given this question stem:

"Which of the following most strongly supported by the statements in the stimulus?"

1. Most instance of A there B may not appear

2. When B is not happening, then A would appear.

3. Every instance of A is not B.

4. There is at least once instance of A where it's not B. (correct answer)

This is a bit straight forward, and of course it's spelled out for you this way, but, it should give you a rough idea of what may appear.

@BullMatt16 I think hypothetically that's possible. I think the issue though is that I've never ran into a such a strict "most" conditional where we know specific instance to be true (both being equal in size and what not).

It's just a safer standard (from what ive seen) to simply have D -(m)> P instead. That way we know regardless of D or P size in the set that "most" of D is subsumed by P superset.

Conjunction/Disjunction vs Contrapostive

A AND B → C

/C → /A OR /B (Contrapostive Morgan's Law)

A OR B → C

/C → /A AND /B (Contrapostive Morgan's Law)

A → B AND C

/B OR /C → /A (Contrapostive Morgan's Law)

A → B OR C

/B AND /C → /A (Contrapostive Morgan's Law)

Personally I needed to see all 4 variations of conjunctions and disjunctions in their contrapostive form (using Morgan's law of course) before it become clear. Hopefully this helps others.

@iciarqwq While this may not help you (based on posted dates). I'll leave this response for others in case they don't understand even with the video explanation. Let's start with the fundamentals. In the LSAT an argument is made of Premise + Conclusion. A premise is a claim that gives support, and a conclusion is a claim that receives support. So here it's saying "it is a claim": a declarative statement. "that the argument as a whole": the whole passage/stimulus. "Is structured to support": the conclusion. So essentially it's saying that the prompt about "budget should be redirected..." is the main conclusion in the passage. Hopefully this helps those in the future who read this.