OMG IT TOOK ME 11 MINS BUT I FINALLY GOT ONE OF THESE RIGHT... YOU GUYS GOT THISSSS

this lesson's making me feel so stupid

I think what makes these questions harder (Ive gotten every single one of these wrong) because for one I got used to figuring out all of the questions up until now intuitively and recognizing patterns. But sufficient assumptions have more formulaic patterns which I think as soon as you see a sufficient assumption question (and maybe necessary assumption questions - but I haven't made it to necessary assumption questions yet, just assuming it will be similar) you need to switch your brain to start thinking mathematically. BUTT let's be real if I can't get used to mapping these out in my head, I will immediately be skipping them on the exam itself. Also I don't know if its just me but for some reason these questions feel different from everything till now, but obviously still similar to the grammar lessons at the beginning teaching conditionals, idk maybe I just forgot it because I did those lessons like 2 months ago.

So sometimes we should look at contrapositives but other times we should just ignore it??

When is the contrapositive allowed and when is it not?

How do we know when it should be allowed?

Is it the case that for all sufficiency questions contrapositives are not allowed?

The logical contrapositive of "should get the award" is "should not get the award". If that is the case then Penn should be allowed to be eligible and should not get the award if failing any of the three conditions from rule two.

The video does not say this but is it the case that because the eligibility arrow goes both ways, that's the only reason we are allowed to take the contrapositive of only the eligibility condition?

I hope all this made sense, just my thinking... please explain more

Thanks!

this is why I didn't major in anything science and now I have to deal with these questions

Are weaken questions just as common as strengthen questions on average? or are there more of one then the other usually?

I think I'm getting it now... This is my understanding but correct me if I'm wrong!

So for weaken questions - you take the phenomena and replace the conclusion with the facts of the phenomena? You are weakening the argument because you're saying - you got the right idea with the phenomena ... but you came to the wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion will be the answer choice that best connects all parts of the phenomenon.

For the strengthen questions - your goal is to actually find the weak points of the phenomenon and any gaps in the argument, find the areas that require assumption to connect the conclusion with the phenomena and look for that in the answer choices. Here if you find that weak point or gap and think of it as - you are filling in that gap so you can strengthen the argument and conclusion.

I've had a 100% accuracy rate on this question type specifically until this question. I literally saw A and thought this could be the right answer and still eliminated because I thought the wording was weird.

I HATE flaw but as soon as I read "apparent discrepancy" and realized it was RRE I immediately gained confidence and got this right. What mind fuckery.

got this in a min and a half but then sat on it for another min and a half, idk why I keep doing this and my lsat is tmrrw im so screwedddd

I saw the word absence and that was the word I was looking for so I said screw it why not

Finally getting better at spotting sufficiency necessity confusions correct

these questions just make be go back and forth between "I wanna kms" and "Ok maybe I actually got this"

Diabolical... this question, the explanation, the LSAT, this exhaustive list of absolute insanity.

tbh I eliminated B after "it is a fact". If something is a hypothetical situation, how is that situation considered a fact? did this throw anyone else off or just me?

I think I'm finally starting to get these, if you do enough of them and sit there to understand why other answer choices are wrong, you'll automatically start doing the negations in your head as well. I stopped looking for the "weakest" answer or " most supported" because that was confusing me leading me to lose interest and ignore the argument altogether. I just started looking for the answer choice that gives me bare minimum for my argument to be true. If a few answer choices give you bare minimum... make sure they all include the key words or phrases you need to connect your prem to your conclusion. If the arg was a comparison for example, then where is the hole between the compared items, then you can generally make a prediction of that gap the LSAT writers will pick on which might even take it a step further and be the bare minimum of that prediction. But I've noticed most answer choices you can eliminate because they aren't resembling the key phrases I need to fill that gap.

I got a bone to pick with these lsat writers