@jakekane While your scenario could be true. Since this is an MSS question we have to take everything from the stimulus as true. Any outside assumption should not be included as we assess questions.

@MorganSmith D isn't correct because adding it to the stem creates more of a discrepancy.

The first sentence is saying the record of tornadoes is increasing (e.g., data being inputted in the National Weather system 3x more than in 1953). The second sentence contradicts the first sentence by saying that even though the environment creating the tornadoes remains the same.

Therefore, our answer choice needs to explain why the record is increasing without changing the environment.

D doesn't explain the questionable event between records increasing and climate factors, but states a fact that, actually, property damage has grown because of tornadoes.

E is explaining how the record is increasing because more people are inputting them into the data site, while the environment hasn't changed since 1953.

@cwferrari You are correct. B has two reasons why it is incorrect. The main reason you listed and J.Y's comment. Nowhere in the stim does it mention most.

@DavesHotChkn A conditional logic is If A then B (A -> B). While casual is A causes B (A -> B) but you can also do B is caused by A (B-> A). Usually I would read it and say this is due to x1 and leads to x2... Since a phenomena happened caused another.

@spoon Not necessarily. For c to be correct the stimulus should imply something about engineers or cost containment. If it did, it would be correct for an assumption question

@AliGoldberg Since the statement has two conditional indicator No and Without they cancel each other out to 'One can eat a hamburger while drinking beer.

Now we are trying to negate the whole statement that we just translated into lawgic (H → B) by:

1) Keep the first claim H

2) Deny the conditional relationship which is the arrow to some or and

3) Take the contrapositive of the last claim B

H → -B or H and -B

@Katharína For most LSAT questions, technical terms will be comprehension. LSAT will include elaboration or definition as some ideas are not general knowledge

@MariaLCantu Referential phrasing is just a way to understand the stimulus better. The LSAT can write out the whole clause of what it is referring to but choose not to because of convenience.

Once you can mentally note the referential phrasing is referring to something, then you can just move on. Early on it is easy to break it down the phrases.

@8M_M8 Once you are skimming that means you're building your intuition which you are becoming confident in. If you can prephrase the answer choice and found the correct one then I say it would be fine.

Just be mindful on harder questions to read it if it includes sub-conclusions.

@laurasog I remind myself there is only one right answer and the other four are wrong. I recommend to not do process of elimination yet until you identify the context, premise, and conclusion.

My approach:

1) First sentence is context about what is about to be the argument

2) The second sentence is the conclusion because the 'however' is the shift to the Editorial opinion/argument. The rest is a premise.

3) Now prephrase the potential correct answer, which we know the answer must mention about fuzzy distinction between two things: wants and needs

Answer choices:

(c) and (d) can be eliminated already since it doesn't mention the fuzzy distinction of two things

(b) incorrect because the Editorial did not mention anything about right or wrong just that there is a distinction

(e) incorrect because the Editorial is not talking about the frequency that the conclusion is doing.

Therefore A, is correct because of the paraphrasing.

LSAT also places the correct answer strategically as A to make us second guess the right answer. That is why is you have a strong foundation of prephrasing the correct answer you won't fall for these traps. In addition, if your between to answers pick the one you are leaning towards and ask 'why should I believe that?' the premise in the stimulus should prove it.

@gabbergabs

The original statement is:

If a resident lived in a building with more than ten units, then either she has an inalienable right to keep a pet or she has not kept that pet openly and notoriously.

B10+ → (R or /OpNo)

Apply rule 3 (negate sufficient)

B10+ → (R or /OpNo) to B10+ → (OpNo → R)

He chose to negate OpNo to not deal with a negative, but you can negate R first .

If a resident lived in a building with more than ten units, she has kept that pet openly and notoriously, has an inalienable right to keep a pet.

The or is still a conditional indicator with a sufficient and necessary. Since we did rule 3 above the sufficient is now OpNo and necessary is R

Remember there is an inclusive either/or sometimes meaning 'and'. That is what he is doing here. He dropped the parenthesis to conjoin the two sufficiecy B10+ and OpNo

B10+ and OpNo → R

I am from AZ and interested!