so would this be correct? I did the same

I agree, went back to V1 and then back here. It helped a lot, thank you!

Did the questions change😅? The video did help a lot, thank you!

can i move onto next lesson and come back to this? Its still hard to understand this

I wrote the same thing Require –> /denied treatment. So does that mean its correct? Im kind of struggling understanding this topic

correction, my lawgic: /happiness-->/MWB

For 6.1, the statement is:

"There can be no lasting happiness without mental well-being."

The correct answer shown on 7sage is:

happy → mwb

/mwb → /happy

However, I put the following as my answer:

LAWGIC: happiness--->MWB

Contrapositive: MWB-->happiness

Clause 1 says "can be no lasting happiness" which would be [~happiness],

and Clause 2 is "without mental well-being" which would be [~MWB] , I put it like that because the "without" is a negate sufficient.

Therefore would my LAWGIC be correct?

I agree, thank you!

Thank you so much :)

Can you explain again how the tiger argument is the second strongest argument? I also understand that we cant really put real life experiences/knowledge into the LSAT. Therefore in the exam how would we know if a "tiger is a mammal?" Obviously, we know a tiger is a mammal outside LSAT test knowledge. However in the LSAT claim , wouldn't the claim have to say, "a mammal like a tiger is aggressive..." ?