@TOMCRUISE The problem I find with the indicators is that for any argument structure more complicated than premise -> conclusion, they will start to break down. For instance, any argument with a major premise/subconclusion is liable to have "so" or "therefore" or "thus" pointing to the major premise. If you go solely based on indicators, then you can more easily mistake the major premise for the conclusion of the argument as a whole. Focusing on the ideas themselves and which ones support the others I find to be more consistent. And in reality we might not see these indicators. Like JY says, any list of indicators will be both over- and underinclusive. If the goal is to not just win the LSAT, but become a better arguer (and eventually attorney), then moving on from word matching to understanding the argument holistically is an important step we should all be taking.

@MorganLSAT Straight up. The hide answer feature is so much jankier now. And they had the gall to put the little “accessibility” symbol right next to the new, janky toggle 😑

I’m glad I can edit the font size and that theoretically the change means it’s harder to cheat (totally unclear on the mechanism for that prevention but whatever).

@dh2303 Paragraph 4, Sentence 1:

But even if the process Steele and his colleagues describe is possible, does it ever actually occur?

The referent of "the process" is the carrying of altered DNA from immune to reproductive cells via viruses in its entirety. The passage only claims that reverse transcription is possible, and only refers to other people's skepticism regarding its plausibility. Since the process was not stated to be directly observed by the passage, direct observation of at least one part of that process would strengthen the argument by lending credence to the mechanism for Lamarckian evolution that Steele et al posited.

@TingZhu It didn't have to be the first in the US at all, just the best attempt so far at "founding a truly national black theater". If African American theater culture was confined to large eastern cities, that excludes large swathes of the nation (small cities, non-eastern cities, and places that aren't cities). C establishes that the FTP's Negro Units were better at being national black theater than any preceding black theater.

I talked myself out of the right answer. D provides an alternate explanation for the actual phenomenon. B provides an alternate explanation to a phenomenon that I imagined by misreading the stimulus. I replaced "most" with "all".

A, C, and E are not alternative explanations to the phenomenon in question either.

The universal solution to burnout is take a break and think about why you're doing what you're doing. Rest will always help.

The introspection can lead in different directions. What were your reasons for pursuing this in the first place? Do you still feel the same way about your original motivations, or have they changed? Upon reflection, are you burnt out because you are overworking yourself and you're sick of the grind? Or have you lost sight of what motivated you in the first place?

To use a little LSAT speak: One can spend their time successfully studying for the LSAT only if they are well rested and feel motivated to succeed. Burnout usually comes from failing one of these necessary conditions.

Also anecdotally, the compulsion to optimize is often my worst enemy. I spend more time worrying if what I'm doing is optimal and less time actually doing the thing. Taking a break feels especially scary because you're spending the time not studying, and studying feels like progress. But studying while burnt out is way less efficient than studying while you're rested and relaxed, and can lead to giving up if you're not careful and you try to push through too hard. I'm not a tutor or anything, but I'd recommend taking at least a couple of days off and doing things you enjoy. Maybe think a bit about your motivations, and hold on to those to help you get through the drills as well. Come back better.

@nikki The phenomenon (premise/support) is assumed to be true, but the hypothesis (conclusion) is not. Important distinction.

Negating a sufficient condition does not allow us to validly conclude anything at all in conditional logic. Even if most consumers don't care about GEIs, there could be other sufficient conditions that lead to the necessary label.

I read A too quickly and fully missed the word "only", leading to a guess. Friendly reminder to myself and anybody reading this that every word counts! Reading slowly and accurately would have saved me time and got me the point.

@yuzu301 I don't think so. "Candy has more sugar than is recommended. Consuming more sugar than is recommended can lead to fatigue. So consuming candy can lead to fatigue."

This is directly parallel to: "Vegetables, such as celery or parsnips, contain large amounts of fiber. Consuming large amounts of fiber can help your bowel movements. Therefore, consuming vegetables can help your bowel movements."

The examples don't serve a logical purpose in the argument, just a rhetorical one. It's similar to the addition of context or other people's perspectives. They add to our understanding, but not the argument itself.

@NunyaBizNiz Grammar strikes again!

@AnnaliseRamirez Sufficient assumptions tend to be stronger because if they are true, then the claim must be true. There is no set intersection. Like I might claim:

This sundae is delicious because it includes Maraschino cherries.

The sufficient assumption can't be "Desserts including Maraschino cherries can be delicious" because that doesn't ensure that the sundae is delicious. It just opens up the possibility that it can be delicious, which is necessary but not sufficient to arrive at our conclusion. A sufficient assumption here would be "All desserts that include Maraschino cherries are delicious". This ensures that the sundae is delicious because it includes the cherries. That "all" statement is strong enough on its own (i.e., it is sufficient) to ensure that the claim is valid.

Going back to the less strong claim: Imagine if we negate that weaker claim. Desserts including Maraschino cherries cannot be delicious. Now it's clearer that the assumption that Maraschino cherries can be part of delicious desserts was necessary to the argument.

This is an artifact of how negation in argumentation works. The negation of "some" is "not some", or "none". If we're trying to claim that a member of one set (a sundae with Maraschino cherries) is also a member of a target set (delicious desserts), then there must be some intersection between the two sets. If there is no intersection between the two sets, then the claim is invalid. So a premise or assumption that the sets intersect (Desserts including Maraschino cherries can be delicious) is necessary in order to validly reach the conclusion.

The negation of "all" is "not all". If we're trying to claim that membership of a subset (desserts with Maraschino cherries) is sufficient for membership of a target set (delicious desserts), we need that subset to be fully subsumed by the target set (all desserts that include Maraschino cherries are delicious). If that subset is actually an intersecting set instead and some members of that subset lie outside of the superset (i.e., "not all" or "some" or even "most" desserts that include Maraschino cherries are delicious), then being a member of that subset is not sufficient to validly conclude membership of the target set.

This is not foolproof, however. Sometimes there are multiple different conditions we need to keep track of and that can be distracting or complicate the argument. But I try to hold on to these first principles to direct my reasoning.

@xanderzvc I did the same thing. POE, then rationalized post-hoc. I think your "can" argument is a good one. People "can" do a lot of things. I wonder since this PT is fairly recent if this represents a potential shift in what the LSAT considers fair game for this question type? Thoughts @Kevin_Lin ?

Explanation says that B and D (my original and BR picks) bring in new ideas... but doesn't C commit the exact same error? Democracy is mentioned, but there was no mention of the universal vote, voting, or elections in the passage.

It's frustrating that there is seemingly support for the fact that the author of passage B is in favor of the argument they outline, even if it's not explicit.

The fact that this line, especially the parenthetical

One natural (one might almost say obvious) way of reasoning...

doesn't read as

One way of reasoning...

means that the author chose to modify this assertion favorably. At least rhetorically, this is tantamount to expressing support of the claim. Which is frustrating.

Further support:

Ideally, the land should be restored to its rightful owners.... The original wrong can most easily be righted by returning the land to them—or by returning it wherever that is feasible.

I've done well over a thousand LSAT questions at this point and I don't think I've met one that frustrates me as much as this one, even after seeing multiple folks' explanations. Every cell in my body says that the author supports this argument.

Pointing out obviousness and/or ease of a solution doesn't necessarily imply support for that solution, but modifying a claim with ideally and claiming that implementing a solution would right a wrong feels like explicit support.

Is the issue that support does not necessarily imply endorsement?

(endorsement -> support), so my mistake was (support -> endorsement)?

Or is the issue that the author claims that land should go back to Native Americans, but not necessarily for the reasons outlined? I'm genuinely baffled by this one.

@monmon June and August dates are both up, I think.

@bappel That's true! They are both necessary conditions. Either one of those could have been a correct answer choice. Necessary conditions aren't mutually exclusive. In order for X to validly cause Y, we need to establish both that X and Y don't have a common cause and that Y does not cause X.

In lawgic:

(X cause Y) -> [/(Y cause X) and /(common cause)]

@bappel In order for the argument to be valid, you would need to make an infinite amount of assumptions ruling out every possible common cause. Since each of those assumptions is necessary for the argument to be valid, any assumption that eliminates a common cause is a necessary assumption (or in the language of this question, "an assumption on which the argument depends").

Important to remember that causal arguments are not conditional, and are not valid.

@MarieChavis One right answer! We gotta learn to be confident in ourselves, take the point, and run.

Argument: X and Y correlate, therefore X causes Y.

Invalid, but could be true only if we assume that X and Y don't have some common cause. So the correct answer will eliminate some potential common cause. If we make the opposite assumption--that the two phenomena in fact do have a common cause--then the argument totally breaks down.

There is a huge set of potential common causes for any correlated phenomena, which is why correlation/causation arguments are invalid. In order for a given correlation/causation argument to be true, we must eliminate all potential common causes.

In this case, the common cause of the absence of the fern and the presence of the worm was the unusually thin leaf litter. The correct answer said that this cannot be the common cause, which must be true in order for the conclusion of the argument to be true.

RC used to feel like a black box to me. This series has been so helpful.

15/16, 4 min under time. But the question I missed I didn't flag, so I likely wouldn't have gotten it if I went back through and reviewed.

I think I got a different drill from other folks… 16/16 though, proud of myself.

@Rena12345 I have failed so many RC main point questions by picking summaries over the actual argument 😑

Understanding that it’s asking about the argument has been a huge help.

@NathanW Saaaame. I got tripped up on the second to last question because I just wasn't reading the answer choices thoroughly. Fully missed a word that made the correct answer choice obvious. I've gotta slow down!

@VenessaO77 If you make a custom RC drill you can select the passage. I took the first sentence or so of the first paragraph and put it into the RC drill search bar, then ran the passage myself untimed before coming back to the lesson.