I would say that it is not completely necessary, but it is super helpful. A lot of the questions use conditional logic to trip u up or two answer choices will be the arrow pointing the "wrong" way or the arrow pointing the "right" way.

When first learning this I felt completely lost and I went and explored LR in my own way. I am coming back to this now because I think it will help raise my score/ make me feel like I'm not just guessing. JY also uses lawgic in a lot of his explanations

If it is burning you out don't commit ur full study session to it. Also if you have specific questions I can try to answer them if you respond in this thread.

I like to think about it as

you cannot drive unless you are at least 16

if you are not at least 16, then you cannot drive

/>16→/D

(fair enough)

or

if you can drive, then you are at least 16

D→ >16

(but you also probably have a license)

this is not the same as

if you cannot drive, then you are not at least 16

/D→/>16

(you could just not have your license)

or

If you are at least 16, then you can drive

>16→D

(you still need to get a license)

hopefully this makes sense and is correct lol

to the best of my understanding, they are saying the same thing

doesnt abate → blackouts occur

i will notate that as /A→ B

no blackout → does abate

notated as /B→A

they are simply contrapositives to each other

these essentially say that a blackout can still occur even if the heat wave goes away, but if there is no blackout then there is definitely no heat wave

if you were to think of this the "other way"

If the heat wave does abate then no blackouts will occur

does abate → no blackouts

A→/B

if blackouts do occur then the heatwave has not abated

blackouts occur → does not abate

B→/A

This way it means that if the heat wave abates then there is no chance of a blackout, but if there is a blackout it is solely because the heat wave did not abate

you can also think of it like this:

you cannot drive unless you are at least 16

if you are not at least 16, then you cannot drive

/>16→/D

or

if you can drive, then you are at least 16

D→ >16

this is not the same as

if you cannot drive, then you are not at least 16

/D→/>16

or

If you are at least 16, then you can drive

>16→D

hopefully this makes sense and is correct lol

Hey so if your diagnosed with anxiety you can probably get time and a half on test day if you apply for accommodations. Also (even without accommodations) try taking a PT without any time limitation to see if your grasping the concepts and just need to get better with timing. I have ADHD and I totally understand feeling like I can’t sit and study. I typically get out of my house and go to a cafe or somewhere as it helps me feel more motivated and reduces things I can get distracted by. I do not study every day as I don’t really have a time frame and doing so leads to burnout so it’s easier to give myself breaks. It’s actually more productive for me to take weekends off and study 4/7 days of the week (I give myself a little midweek break sometimes if I need it). On top of this when I do feel burnout I take 3 to 4 day breaks and focus on literally anything besides the LSAT. Your going to be fine, keep working hard and give yourself some grace.

Yes I think he is essentially saying the LSAT does not make a distinction between these two and it would be a safe answer for this question type.

So even with this example I think she can still go somewhere else to buy milk.

If I go to the store, then I buy milk

Store → Milk

Is different then

If I have milk, then I went to the store

Milk → Store

Store→milk

Means that every time they go to the store they MUST buy milk

They could milk a cow and not go to the store and still have milk

Milk→store

Means that every time you buy milk you MUST have been at the store

They have no other means of getting milk, but they could also go to the store without buying milk.

To be a dog one must be mammal

all poets are writers

The use of vaccines will result in less sickness

They might try to get sneaky and put the “then” before the “if”

Mammals can be dogs

Some writers are poets

Less sickness occurred because of vaccines

In my head sufficiency means that without a a doubt the information provided makes the claim true. Necessity means that there are certain conditions that must be met even if they don’t guarantee the claim to be true.

Ex:

info: to be a cat you must be a mammal

Claim 1: lassie is a mammal therefore lassie is a cat.

This is obviously not true there is not SUFFICIENT information to prove that lassie is a cat. Lassie meets the NECESSARY conditions to be a cat (being a mammal) but there is not sufficient info for being a mammal to guarantee that he is a cat.

Claim 2: Garfield is a cat therefore Garfield is a mammal

True. This can be proven true because there is SUFFICIENT info to say that Garfield is a mammal.

Generally the smaller subset will provide sufficiency for larger groups, and larger groups will provide necessity to be part of smaller subsets.