congrats to all of us who made it past foundations!!! lol!!

@pamelajkok why? we are adults? girl...

what if the non-smoking group got lung cancer because of second-hand smoking. thus they got cancer from smoking anyway, kind of, no? haha

5/5. feelin good

@emilyclangie I don't understanddddd why can't any mannnnnn

this made me feel like a genius lol. I just ignored everything but the lawgic and got it right and under the recommended time (im ALWAYS over). yay!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Saiaaghaty try thinking of it this way: there are 10 commercial airline pilots and 10,000 aliens who fly space ships. all 10 commercial airline pilots are required to have the ability to perform the lazy eight. what if all of the aliens are also required to have the ability to perform the lazy eight? then in total we have 10,010 pilots (both commercial and alien) who can perform the lazy eight. The second statement says that most people who can perform the lazy eight enjoy flying. that means more than half, so for our group of 10,010 than at least 5,006 of them enjoy flying.

Now, is it possible for some, most, or even all of the commercial pilots to enjoy flying? Sure. Does this logic PROVE that, without any exceptions? I would have to disagree. In our set of 10,010, it is entirely possible that if 5,006 of them enjoy flying, all 5,006 are alien pilots. There could be ZERO commercial pilots in that amount of 5,006. Therefore, no valid conclusions can be drawn!

Silly examples help to make this stuff more digestible in my opinion!! Hopefully this is helpful!

@Nhubria Chikaka ty!!!

is it fine for the last one to have the domain be kingdoms in westeros whose economies... etc. ? I don't see value in putting the economic statement in my chain

these techniques are helpful. it's interesting to see where we take different paths--often when I think a kick it up to the domain framework is fitting, you don't, and vice versa. but it all gets to the same answer, so the variability is fine!

I got tripped up on the last one, as it started with "when" and I mindlessly deemed this a Group 1 indicator and said that knowledge was the sufficient condition. I saw the "if" later and realized how it actually works.

I think the first and third frameworks are my favorite. You use lawgic but also don't need to go into every detail with it. It is both clear and efficient. I'm glad to know this is an option, because it makes sense with how I think!

@Aiden G123 that is helpful to know, thank you!! good luck on your LSAT!

@SusanLeifker my brain wants to PEMDAS lawgic LOL

just to clarify, does A and B --> C mean the same as (A and B) --> C? Like the statement is NOT A, also B --> C? The parenthesis existing sometimes but not always is a bit hard to wrap one's head around, especially with any background in math. thank you!

if you are reading this, you got this!! I believe in you!

3/3 let's go!! I was slow on them but that's alright for now lol

@Kevin Lin that makes a lot of sense! thank you!

@tylersligh to get you familiar with the process. if it's really easy for you, that's a good thing! it isn't the case for everyone haha

@SusanLeifker It took me so long because I messed up the translation rule for the group 3 indicator and so I was so lost haha

that took me 8.5 mins and I still got it wrong lmfao but in blind review I got it. sighhhh lots and lots of grinding ahead

@cdietlin501 That doesn't happen to me. I'm using a computer- are you on mobile? Maybe there's an issue with that. weird

@SusanLeifker I keep getting confused thinking certain things are indicators when they aren't. I took the "can't" in example 5 as an indicator from Group 4, but I guess it isn't because "can't" is a modifier for the subject, and not indicating between two pieces in a relationship? Is this the reason, does anyone know?

@rjon27 fr i'm so lost. why do the group 4 rules give me the wrong answer consistently. I also want to just ignore these rules

I thought I understood but now it's clear I do not