@LauraBolivar I believe mapped out it looks like:

MSW (Migrate south in winter) -> B (bird).

mb/B (Monarch butterfly is not a bird).

Conclusion: mb/MSW (Monarch butterfly does not migrate south in Winter)

@lsatjasg Yes since it's just the contrapositive. Not prohibited then serves a medical purpose. Doesn't serve a medical purpose then prohibited.

@HelainaLaCoste The way 7Sage taught in the last lesson was when given a sentence with both indicators “No” and “unless” only focus on “unless” and use no as a negation. I find this to be a bit hard to process easily though and it throws my mind through a loop.

Alternatively since “No” is a negate necessary and “Unless” is a negate sufficient you can just negate both clauses and flip them around as if making a contrapositive. That way every time you get a confusing statement with negate clauses for both sufficient and necessary you can easily do it.

Could also just negate the already negated sufficient clause (negated because of "no") as it is and that makes it all non negated statement (not sure if that makes sense.)

When it comes to chaining the conditions together I think the grammar lessons and getting down to the bare bones of the clauses is really helpful. That way you can focus on just the specific aspect of the sentence that lines up with other sentences. Like Q5 I saw magical energy mentioned in both and so I did the abbreviation ME for both and was able to link them up and chain the conditional. But doing something too simplified like that may miss some nuance like in Q4 I linked all of the clauses together including expected to make tough decisions with making tough decisions as the same clause. But expected to make tough decisions is not entirely the same as actually MAKING the tough decisions. So that could end up being wrong on the LSAT. They said it isn't necessarily wrong though so there's some ambiguity with it.

@SonyaThomas The original two clauses say that "Farmers DO NOT KNOW their income for a given calendar year" UNTIL "Tax returns are calculated and submitted the following April".

In converting to lawgic I make the first clause /FI (the farmers DO NOT KNOW their income hence the slash and I make the FI stand for Farmers know income) and the second clause I make TRC (tax returns calculated.)

In lawgic without doing the negate sufficient yet but putting the farmers in the sufficient spot, it would look like /FI -> TRC.

If you then take that and negate the sufficient as it is here then the result is //FI -> TRC. Since it's double negated that just results in a non negated sentence FI -> TRC. The original statement is then "If farmers know their income then tax returns were calculated and submitted in April."

If you take the contrapositive of that the result is /TRC -> /FI. Or in English "tax returns NOT calculated and submitted following April, then farmers DO NOT KNOW income."

The reason question 4 is tricky is because the first clause is already negated which can make it confusing when negating the sufficient. I hope this made sense and helped out.

@lwealcatch I thought that too, but the video and comments cleared it up. When looking strictly at the comparative statement, "Humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly." The selfish act is more often and is the winner. But once you take in the context of the first part and don't look at it strictly from the point of view of comparison, then that leads to the answer of no evidence and being unable to say a winner.

@tporter1 If I understand correctly it is describing the "when" of the development/action and doesn't really comment on the subject. Just like how in Q3 "At the meeting" modifies declared. It is the "where" it was declared/the action happened but doesn't really comment on Mary.

@NorahBello I believe it is because plants are not the subject of the sentence. The botanists are.

There should be videos for new question variants like this.