Everyone is talking about Pat, but no one is talking about how bad of a deal the VideoKing Frequent Viewers club is.

#Feedback the video sections are wrong--the video says all of Meli's point is part of (E).

concession premise go burrr...

sneaky sneaky!

@OuztsLaw the stimulus in this question is describing an experiment (see 7Sage Lessons: Foundations > Logic of Causation > Ideal Experiment). The third sentence is describing a second group in the experiment. The two groups are as follows:

First Group: normal caloric intake increased by 25%

• For instance, if a person normally eats 2,500 Calories in a day, the experiment makes them eat 3,125 Calories instead.

Second Group: calories in the form of alcohol replaced calories from non-alcohol

• For instance, if a person normally eats 2,500 Calories in a day and doesn't drink alcohol, then the experiment still has them consume 2,500 Calories in a day, but 625 of those Calories come from alcohol.

You do not need to calculate the exact number of Calories this works out to on the LSAT, but you do need to understand that the First Group ate more Calories than the Second Group yet both groups gained body fat.

I understand that the stim draws a negative correlation between uncertainty/stress and pain, but how is a negative causal relationship from uncertainty/stress to pain supported? Also, would it be just as supported to say that "pain sometimes reduces the amount of stress a heart patient experiences?"

Here's how I placed each answer choice on the Spectrum of Support:

(C): anti-supported

(D), (E): unsupported

(A): weakly supported

(B): strongly supported/valid

From the LR modules, I understand that the credited answer choice to MP question is not always the ideal answer choice, since we don't always get it as an answer choice. In this instance, would the ideal answer choice be the following?

"The teaching that a political assassination caused WWI is bound to mislead"

I mistakenly read A as "people are mistaken that: chocolate -->(c) acne," but it really says "people are mistaken that: chocolate <-->(corr) acne"

Here's my notes in case anyone finds them helpful:

Structure

Phenomenon:

I. Australia (Au) has fewer species of carnivorous mammals (CM) than any other continent

II. Australia has a roughly equal number of species of carnivorous reptiles (CR) as other continents

Authors Hypothesis: Phenomenon is probably a consequence Australia's sparseness

• Why? Sparseness -> AuCM eat much more than AuCR -> AuCM disadvantage (-> I) and AuCR not disadvantage (-> II)

Answer

All premises point to the Author's Hypothesis, therefore, the author's hypothesis is the answer to this MP question.

TL;DR

"Australia has considerably fewer ..." is not the conclusion.

"This is probably a consequence of ..." is the conclusion.

@DavidDuncan88 Counterpoint: the right answer choice is necessarily wrong--or at least, the credited response is necessarily not the 4 uncredited response.

As a statistics major, I want add that the set of all people a correlation or causation relationship involves is called a population, while the selected participants in an experiment is called a sample. By having an experiment with a non-random sample of the population, there is a very high chance you'll get a sample unrepresentative of the population.

For instance, in the cruise ship example, 7Sage pointed out that the sample (those who self-selected to go on the cruise) is unrepresentative of the population (all people). If the causal hypothesis was instead "of people on the cruise ship, dramamine reduces seasickness" and the people who took dramamine vs. those who didn't were completely random, then the experiment would support it.

Correction for 0:22: Walter White never smoked, but he worked with carcinogenic chemicals. This presents an alternative hypothesis to your hypothesis.

How do we deal with "probably" claims, like in the opera example?

I think it's important to mention that the meaning of "not all" depends on context.

For example, All X-Wings have hyperdrives.

Notice that this statement is ambiguous. It could either mean

• Interpretation 1: All currently-existing X-Wings have hyperdrives.

  • Note this is an intersecting set (quantifier) relationship.

• Interpretation 2: All X-Wings that can ever be made have hyperdrives.

  • Note this is a sufficiency-necessity relationship.

With that in mind

• Some X-Wings don't have hyperdrives is the correct negation when Interpretation 1 is correct

• A thing can be an X-wing and not have hyperdrives is the correct negation when Interpretation 2 is correct.

I think it's important to mention that the meaning of "not all" depends on context.

For example, All X-Wings have hyperdrives.

Notice that this statement is ambiguous. It could either mean

• Interpretation 1: All currently-existing X-Wings have hyperdrives.

  • Note this also implies a weaker claim, All X-Wings in the past have hyperdrives.

  • Note this is an intersecting set (quantifier) relationship.

• Interpretation 2: All X-Wings that can ever be made have hyperdrives.

  • Note this is a sufficiency-necessity relationship.

With that in mind

• Some X-Wings don't have hyperdrives is the correct negation when Interpretation 1 is correct

• A thing can be an X-wing and not have hyperdrives is the correct negation when Interpretation 2 is correct.

@jolie.abdo32 bro just entirely summarized a 5min30sec video into 8 words.

For Q3, I noticed that the bonded pair clause implies that they are not a bonded pair with each other. Couldn't one or both of Mittens and Nittens be part of a bonded pair, just not with each other? Not that it would change the answer much.

@gsos1719735 These last few lessons at the end of this module are to help us answer only the hardest LR questions. If you are not trying to get a perfect/near perfect score, then you're right; you probably don't need these.

In my math undergrad, I remember one of my teachers saying that definitions are indicate "if and only if." Does that mean there are biconditional indicators, as far as the LSAT is concerned?

For example, "The definition of an apple is a red fruit." Doesn't that mean that "A fruit is red if and only if it's an apple?"

I'm surprised you didn't use "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better."

I thought the credited response was (D) and the answer to the question presented in (D) was "Those technologies that are not neutral."

I see what you did there for #5.