I got this question right, but I don't know. I still feel lost when doing MSS questions. Even though JY does amazing in explaining how tackle these questions, I feel like every time I use a strategy, a new one always comes in a different question; making the others seem unnecessary as if they are not needed.

I can shamefully say I feel for the trap :/

can someone please explain to me what are we doing here? Like the point of it all? I am so confused, and truly don't know what's happening or the point of this lesson and the next one. I feel so discouraged :( #help#help#help#help

I am confused. The point of an alternative hypothesis is to test the strength of the argument? If so, do we come up with these alternative hypothesis ourselves after reading the argument? or are the alternative hypothesis going to be the ones present as answer choices?

#help (Added by Admin)

I ALWAYS get confuse when reading a premise, in terms of how to structure it in my head or wether to find it valid or invalid. They always sound valid in my head. Of course, when I do it on paper, I figure it out and understand it. I just worry that I will always rely on doing it on paper, because on the actual LSAT am not going to have time to draw every single conditional statement.

I got to give feedback on how well this V2 version is organized. It is so much better than V1. I started learning Quantifiers after like 30% of the actual LR section ON V1, I love how this is introduced way before actually starting LR. #feedback

What confuses me is how we read the contrapositive. For example, in the example of

/USA → /NYC

A/USA

A/NYC

Wouldn't this not be valid? Because if I read like how I was taught, Sufficient → Necessary; then, wouldn't USA be a subset of NYC's superset? In that case, not being USA does not necessarily you don't live in NYC. I know this is an example of the contrapositive, but if a test question comes up with a scenario like this one, how does it make sense? (I know it does not make sense due to the example of NYC and the USA) but in another scenario, wouldn't this still be an invalid argument?

I can't stress enough how much I laughed when I read this sentence:

"Oh jeez I do wonder where a bear shits. Be it in the woods?" No, that's not what's happening. "

Same for me. I was about to study LG but my progress and every content on it disappeared.

If there is a groupchat please let me know. Am also aiming for the November test.

I am STRUGGLING on these PA and MoR questions. I have not struggled that much on any LR question. It is supposed to be super simple but I just CAN'T seem to understand why the answer is right. If anyone has any tips, I would truly appreciate it.

#help

Amazing lesson by J.Y. You basically explained a summary of what we have been taught so far in another form outside of the LSAT. Instead of watching another tedious video lesson, I ended up not only relearning stuff already taught, but also in another form. Great lesson!

I can't stress enough how well this V2 version is formatted compared to V1. Don't get me wrong, V1 does a really good job. But V2 perfectly organized in terms of how is supposed to be taught. By following the LR section in order, I have understood the lessons 10x better, and has facilitated my understanding of different LR questions Stems, since they are all connected in some degree.

Can Evaluate questions be seen as another form of Point at Issue questions? I have noticed that even though they are not EXACTLY the same, they both attack the main argument behind both points of views. Of course, that would be if the Premise is a two sided Premise of two people's points of view.

I did everything right, but I never made the inference on how Pat is not a member. I know is a mistake to assume that he is, but I don't know, it never occurred to me that he isn't. Does anyone know how to practice inferences? #feedback

#help (Added by Admin)

I got this question right, and even though I only understood like 50% of what the actual textual evidence stated, I feel like I only got it right because of process of elimination. For example, I was also between B and D, but because B talks about SKEPTICS (which on Chin mentions) I decided to go with B since its something talked about on both arguments. Even though this is something that may not always work, I feel like in PAI questions, might work on certain questions that are harder such as this one.