Mr. Worldwide

I eliminated A because I thought that the "access" being spoken about was the developing nation's access to the capability to air industrialized media. I didn't feel like there was any reason to assume that it was the individuals', within those nations, "access" being spoken about. I don't see anyway to have interpreted the question differently than I did, besides just being lucky.

If we are talking about the nation's access, then the fact that some air more industrialized media doesn't mean anything. My friend might spend a lot more time golfing than I do, but that doesn't mean we don't both have the same level of access to Top Golf.

#help

same here

#help

You are the best Confused_potato1! Thank you for your advice!!

I could be wrong but I think that the method you described is the same as JY's. We look at the argument and there was a correlation established between abnormalities and snoring, and then a conclusion put forward that snoring causes abnormalities. We assumed from the correlation a certain causal relationship. The correct answer then strengthened that assumption.

Then, there is debate over this, but I am in the camp that it is better to not try to do too much argument analysis before going to the answers. If you understand what is being said, then it is okay if you don't know what the assumption being made is, because you will be able to identify it in the AC. For me, as long as I have a good grasp on the grammar of the passage I usually do good. Did that make sense? Best of luck!

#help

I've been thinking about this question, and feel like if I were to see it under time pressure I would translate the second half of it differently in my head.

Listing --> easier to limit --> some people would do so --> they would be healthier.

I know JY's explanation contains far more clarity, but I don't feel that I would replicate that more-intricate-than-not level of logic under timed conditions. Does my translation work? Is it a bad habit that will punish me in other questions?

Hi there! I can see where you are getting mixed up. The principle at play here is more one of logical structure rather than traditional argumentative intuition. Here is an example:

My friend said that any healthy dog will want to go on a walk.

My dog benji is a healthy dog.

Therefore, WW3 will occur soon.

Someone could say, "hey that's a bad argument!" And I would respond, oh don't worry, I will make my argument much more strong.

A recent randomized double blind study that included more than 10,000 dogs concluded that any healthy dog will want to go on a walk.

My dog Benji is a healthy dog.

Therefore, WW3 will occur soon.

Even though I strengthened my premise, I didn't strengthen the argument. The argument still sucks just as much as it did before.

The argument in this question is the exact same. No matter how strong you make the premises, you could get all the science in the whole world to prove those premises are true, the conclusion just doesn't follow. Because what the premises provided us with was a correlation, and until we are provided a premise that shows some sort of causal relation, a correlation it will stay.

I think in the world, we take for granted that most arguments' conclusions will follow, if the premises are true. And so we naturally just focus on trying to prove our premises. But in the logic of the LSAT, we don't take that for granted and it often is not the case. Hope this helps and was clear! If you have any other questions feel free to ask and I can try to answer them. Best of luck! :)

Went through the lessons twice and got 5/5 on harder, under time by 1.8 minutes overall. I think this stuff is making sense. Im gonna go cry now in partial relief.

I felt like I understood the passage pretty well, got all the questions right at suggested time, except for the "Main Idea" one. I felt like E described the main vibe of the argument better, and that A was just describing a specific part of it. I see now that E is more just talking about the structure, but I am still not sure how the main idea of the passage is that there are demographic differences. I thought the main idea was that there are similarities so we should study the relationship between the two groups.

#help

real

Yes (and a few other reasons). The correct answer in this case was a comparative statement. The fact that something is a comparative statement means very little in and of itself. It is just like something being a causal statement, or a predictive statement. We just have to make sure that the specific passage has the unique firepower necessary to support that statement.

you’re a real one, I appreciate that🙏 #lsatfamily #tramabonded #still-single

5/5 on harder. Was only 30 secs over time, overall. The logic is logic'ing.

Hi Katie! The concept behind both of these is very simiar, and a very important one, so it's good that you asked! Understanding this will help you greatly in many questions that include any sort of causal logic.

"Identifying a causal factor doesn't preclude other causal factors."

I could say that "if it is raining it will cause the street to be wet." This statement only means what I said and nothing else. The street could also be caused to be wet because I turned on the sprinkler, or because a flood happened, or because I went on a walk and cried on the street because of how difficult the lsat is. But then, the street isn't the only thing that will be caused to be wet. The roof will be covered in water, so will the tree, and so on. None of that is true or not true based one what I said, it is irrelevant. There are many causes and effects in the world, and each thing probably has a complex system of causes and effects, so when make a rule such as "If A then B," we are not deleting all the other causal relations that A and B have respectively. Rather we are just identifying one among many.

"Identifying a causal pathway doesn’t preclude other causal pathways."

Here is a pretend causal pathway. "If it is raining, the street is wet. If the street is wet, I will hydroplane while driving. If I hydroplane I will lose control. If I lose control I will get in a car wreck." This causal pathway must occur because I made it into a premise/rule, and we don't question premises. However, I could still get in a car wreck just because I was looking at my phone, or because my breaks went out. This isn't the only causal pathway to a car wreck, there are many others. This is a fallacy that will appear many times in the test so keep an eye out for it.

Hope this helps, best of luck!!

This review lesson is worth its weight in gold. We will master this stuff gang

I see your reasoning, but I believe there is a key reason why JY's explanation is necessary. Within the confines of the horror show that is LSAT logical thinking principles, rules/principles only ONLY only apply when the sufficient has been triggered.

The "small experimental vacuum tubes" triggered this rule about being able to replace the other tech things because they were better with heat. All things that are better with heat must abide by these rules now. But things that don't deal with heat better? i.e. things that fail the sufficient conditions, we have zero, nadda, zip, clues as to what standard they are being judged against.

If the rule were simply that some X must abide by these certain rules to be able to replace Z, then yes it applies to everything. But this says that all X (that are better with heat) must abide by these rules. We infer that the other vacuum tubes are not better with heat, and therefore the explanation from JY was needed for logical clarity.

EXAMPLE:

If you play in the NFL then you have to have won 75% of your games to be considered to be a NFL coach.

If you do not play in the NFL, then that same rule does not apply to you. Just like because the normal vacuum tubes don't handle heat better, they are not subject to the rule that applies only to things that handle heat better. Hope this makes sense and helps!

"alas, all things that live must one day die."

JY with his inner Shakespeare.

"Big fish, small fish"... red fish blue fish.

JY with his inner Dr Seuss.

A man of many letters indeed.

Don't worry! If you want to get these right under time I have a great suggestion, it takes some pain and work but it was an absolute game changer for me.

Step One: Memorize the list of logical indicators

-Try listing as many as you can by memory, if you can only get a few no worries that's how I started. Look back at the full list and write down the ones you didn't get in red. Then delete it and try to list them again. If you still get the same amount or even less, don't worry. Walk away and then repeat the same process the next day. Over the course of a couple days you will start to be able to list them all much easier.

Step Two: Record each logic question in a google sheets

-Each time you do a question that revolves around logic, write down the entire question in a google sheet. Then, put the passage translation into logic into the next box on the google sheets. If you can't do that at first no worries that's how I started, you can lean on JY's breakdowns. Then in the next box write what logical form/indicator/pattern it used and why it was confusing.

Step Three: Review that google sheet everyday before studying

-Go through each question you have listed there and work through the logic by yourself again, and then check against the answer you have listed. If you just remember it from having seen it the day before, that's fine, it is sinking in and will improve your fluency.

Step Four: Recognize common patterns

-You will start to see that there are common argument patterns the lsat uses to trip you up. Here are some examples that I have found

Not A unless not B

We can conclude that If A then /B

If A then B, If /A then C

We can conclude If /C then A then B

Then B if A, If C then A

We can conclude If C then A then B

Step Five: Enjoy a higher level of pattern recognition

-This is when you start to enjoy these questions, they become easy points for you on the test. You will see some of the patterns you've written down, or things similar to them, and immediately know what they mean. Just keep repeating the process everyday and you will make great strides. I put away about an hour everyday to do all the review stuff, and the an hour to add to the Google sheets with new logic problems. This is in addition to the rest of my study routine. Best of luck to you and remember this test is SO learnable! It just takes LOTS of hours and lots of recording and reviewing.

If you want anymore help or coaching dm me on 7sage and I'd love to help!

hi elizacalzadillam, I'm not sure I agree with the other comment here. I don't believe that being a member of the club has any formal logic relation to receiving the discount, strictly speaking. The reason being that those who are members of the club can receive the discount, under certain criteria. There is a possible scenario where I am a member of the club, but have no interest in buying a movie that month and don't utilize the discount. In other words, Member of club & /(Recieve discount) is a possibility.

An analogy is that as a human with a credit card, I can buy a 5 day cruise to the Bahamas, the option is open to me. But to say If a human with credit card --> buy cruise would be false because I don't want to spend that much money and will not be on the boat. Another analogy would be that I, as a McDonalds' app member, do not necessarily use every discount they offer, but when I do use the discount I necessarily abide by the app's annoying rules. Love McDonalds.

I think this is a common fallacy on the lsat, to mistake possibility for certainty/necessity. All we know is that if you are a member who has purchased more than 10 videos, you only have one way of going about getting the discount, and if you are a member who has purchased less than 10 videos you only have one way of going about getting the discount. Hope this helps and best of luck!!

Ah yes! Exactly right. Best of luck to you and sending good vibes, we got this!

Videoking has got some messed up discount policies

If you're going into the test soon, best of luck!!

glad to know that the independent pet stores of West Calverton are still stocking their classic-tropical fish and exotic bird-combo

yessssss 15 secs under time. This has been one of my weakest question types and I never thought I'd get it, but turns out drilling logical indicators, blind review, and question sets actually works

I am not sure exactly what you mean by most + most, but if it is a unidirectional chain then no inference can be drawn.

A most B most C. No inference.

A -most-> B, A -most-> C. We can draw the inference

B some C

Additionally,

A -most-> B --> C. This concludes that A some C.

Note: I tried to indicate that the some relations are bi-conditional but my computer won't let me for some reason