You have to get a feel for when a conditional relationship is being invoked. Start paying attention to when something occurs, something else is required, indicated or supposed to occur. "If" and "then" are just clear cut explicit indicators, but is not needed to express a conditional relationship.

If I had 20 minutes on every question - like this explanation - I'd kill the LSAT.

So if the excerpt was an observation, C would have been correct? But you also mention the excerpt is a rhetorical question, which is a declarative statement/observation, so I still don't see why this wouldn't also be considered a causal mechanism for an observed phenomenon.

Some range is from 1-100. Includes the possibility of all.

Super helpful, thank you Kevin.

Who cares

Because the hardest one requires all the skills you've gained while working through the relative easier problems earlier in the course

Slow --> Fast ??

In Flaw questions you'll read an argument that contains a reasoning flaw. Your job would be to find an answer that describes that flaw accurately (in-line with stimulus), and is the ACTUAL flaw of the argument.

Weakening Questions you'll be tasked with picking an answer choice that functionally weakens the support structure of the argument.

Idk about what this guy is talking about. ^

But putting it simply, B's conclusion doesn't match the stimulus' conclusion.

B's conclusion: "will refuse to accept them even when.."

Stimulus conclusion: Checkers non-acceptance of Marty's coupons is to HURT them.

B's conclusion deals with a conditional that prescribes an action (refusing to accept).

Stimulus is concluding a MOTIVE behind that action.

A touches on this MOTIVE while B just describes an action that they will take (refuse to accept).

The conditional statement in E is shown as follows in Lawgic:

Should apologize for telling a lie --> can apologize to all who were told lie

The goal of the question is to find a rule that RESULTS in an apology being REQUIRED.

E gives a conditional rule that tells us what is required for an apology to take place. ("should apologize" in sufficient condition).

We want an answer that has "should apologize" in the NECESSARY condition. As provided by C.

Hope this helps

Alright super lawyer, keep it pushing buddy. Didn't even need to comment lol

You can't compare two completely different groups and derive a common conclusion for both groups. One group stretches, the other doesn't, and there were no injuries in both groups. Answer choice D calls out that difference between the groups (stretching). It's not that stretching doesn't do anything to prevent injuries, but it's the fact the stretching itself prevented one of the groups from showing any injuries that would have occurred without stretching.

clever lol