Lawgic translation (may require validation, pls correct me if I'm wrong):

/BenfitOutweightCost + Not bothered to acquire information > Rational

_

Conclusion: Not bothered to acquire info (consumer) = Rational

Missing piece (answer E): Consumer do not expect that the benefit of acquiring information will not outweight cost.

#feedback The lessons on custom-made medical illustrations are incredibly helpful. I was never this clear in RC section. Thank you Kevin!

Finally, understand why AC (B) doesn’t weaken the argument. It merely states that there are some other reasons that can cause cancer. It is not denying the truth of P3 or the conclusion of the author. Its like saying -

C: Don't drive the car P: Because driving causes accident.

An incorrect weakener like the AC(B) would be - 'there are other reasons for accidents not related to driving' (say, being a passenger in the car and dying due to an explosion). Sorry, that's a sad death! But it doesn't weaken the conclusion.

My 2 cents. Please go through this video fully even if you have got the answer choice right. There are important tips (such as why AC which repeats the conclusion cannot be the right answer, LSAT examiners would want us to strengthen taking into account the premise as well and not pick an answer that ignores the P).

Read the answers too quickly and chose D, thinking it says maple trees require more calcium than spruces.. Completely ignored summer etc.

Programmers = P1, P2, P3......

Programmer who is most productive = Pn.p

Rule 1: Code = P1 + P2

Rule 2: Code = Pn.p + none

D) Code = Pn.P + somebody , thus violating Rule 2 and therefore the correct answer.

Here are the tricks I found out so far in these lessons, especially on the timing aspect for long chain questions. Pardon me if my thinking or the strategy changes as I progress into other lessons.

1) If the stim starts with 'most' and then pivots into pure if, then statements, the first claim of most is redundant and it won't serve any purpose, because you cannot draw any meaningful inferences out of the A ---m> B claims. So in your mind, ignore that particular stim altogether. For e.g. in this question, WD m> AW is of no value.

2) If the answer starts with, 'if is triggered', wait stop right over there and do not proceed with that answer choice. It is useless. However, be mindful that if the answer choice says, if is not triggered, then it is the contra positive and you need to read further and eliminate.

Corporate contracts > Large companies

-Large companies > -Corporate contracts

However, several small companies won awards for their corporate work! I'm having a hard time understanding, how on earth they got to work on those contract, forget winning an award? Remember, only large companies get corporate contracts. Isn't it a flaw in the Stim?

Stim instead should have just stated that, several small companies won award for their work / designs etc. This phrase 'corporate work' is inconsistent with rest of the stim.

The conclusion is about 'sustaining life'. AC (A) and (C) are talking about life being arisen on those planets. What if people from earth migrate into those planets? Can it sustain life? Author says yes, by presuming without justification that:

(i) there are other solar system that are similar to that of ours; AND

(ii) by applying the ratio of 1/9 to such other solar systems and concluding that there would be earth like planets in those solar systems which can sustain life.

#feedback This entire chapter felt like a real pain in the a. Please have some flow charts if not video lectures, to provide an overall picture and then breaking down into sections. Some sections felt like I'm going into a transe! It took me more than 3 hours to complete.

Most almonds grown in California are produced for domestic consumption.

Almonds (5 pieces)

Domestic consumption of food in california (100 pieces)

Most almonds are for domestic consumption = atleast 3 out of 100 food items are almonds

Suppose, only 3 are for domestic consumption and balance 2 are for exports.

Most almonds grown in California require intense irrigation to produce.

Almonds (5 pieces)

Items that require intense irrigation in california (100 pieces)

Most almonds in C require intense irrigation = atleast 3 out of 100 items that require irrigation are almonds

Even if you assume that out of these 3 almonds, 2 are exported, atleast 1 almond is consumed domestically.

Therefore, some foods produced for domestic consumption require intense irrigation to produce.

Total food items in C = 100

Total almonds domestically consumed = 3, out of which atleast 1 almond was produced with intense irrigation

So, some food in California (that 1 fat almond which sucked all the waters in california) require intense irrigation.

I will score 171+ (-7 or lower)

This is what is helping me solve difficult / lengthly questions. Instead of putting things into an equation form, try to vizualize the content as and when you read it. For eg.

A development company has proposed building an airport near the city of Dalton. I'm from Bangalore, India and Brigade is a popular development company. So I visualize this line as, Brigade Group is given a mandate to build some new airport in a nearby city.

If the majority of Dalton's residents favor the proposal, the airport will be built. If the majority of the residents of that nearby city say 'yes', airport will be built. But here, I'm thinking - so what if they say no? Airport may still be build if let's say, a bill is passed in the parliment specifically for the construction of this airport.

_

However, it is unlikely that a majority of Dalton's residents would favor the proposal, for most of them believe that the airport would create noise problems. _ Ok, so now I don't know whether airport will be built or not (because I don't know any other factors such as bill in the parliment etc. that may trigger the construction of airport).

Thus, it is unlikely that the airport will be built. NOO! You have just eliminated one condition that could've trigger airport construction (resident's saying no)., but what about the other considerations? How did you assume that none of those factors comes into play here?

Now, hunt for AC that says, confusing sufficient for necessary.

Had touble understanding what 'it' refers to in the last 'unless' conditional in Q.5. Here is what I understood after going through the video.

Knowledge of the existence of a particular fact = XLSAT coin scam

Such knowledge = Knowledge of XLSAT coin scam

Believes that it does not exit = Believes that XLSAT coin scam does not exist

"..... From that perspective, the two arguments are identical. In either instance, we are to suppose the truth of the same set of facts. It's just that in the original, that supposition happens in the sufficient condition of the conclusion whereas in the transformed, that supposition happens in the premises."

What exactly is the supposition in the second / transformed argument? My understanding is that, pNYC and pB10+ are stated premises. Can someone clarify this?