AC A is offering an alternative hypothesis. It's not required to know what "social inertia" is here. All we need to know is that AC A offers an alternate hypothesis to the particular scenario in the stimulus. Instead of resisting due. to social inertia, AC A states that the resistance is there because of a fear of losing jobs. Answer choice C references. a scenario we shouldn't even care about. The stimulus references people who resisted, why should we care about the people who did not resist? In addition, it is fully possible that some people embraced technology in this scenario. The stimulus mentions there are "plenty of examples" of people resisting, but it does not say that "all" people resisted.

AC A provides an alternative hypothesis that instead of "social inertia" being the reason people resist, it is the correct belief that new tech causes job losses.

Is your username a JJK reference? Because if so, GOATED

Mistaking Correlation for Causation:

Imagine every time you wear your lucky socks, your favorite basketball team wins. You might think, "My socks make them win!" But in reality, their win has nothing to do with your socks—they’re winning because of their practice, skills, and teamwork. You just noticed a pattern (correlation), but that doesn’t mean your socks caused the wins.

Using Similar Effects to Strengthen a Causal Argument:

Now, let’s say scientists want to know if drinking milk helps kids grow taller. They look at kids in different schools, different countries, and different backgrounds. If they find that everywhere kids who drink more milk tend to grow taller—even when they account for other factors like genetics or diet—that makes the argument stronger. They're not just seeing one random pattern; they're seeing the same effect in different situations.

The Difference:

Lucky socks? Just a coincidence (correlation, not causation).

Milk and growing taller in different schools and countries? Much stronger evidence (similar effects in different places strengthen the argument).

I think also with your "american team and funding" aspect, we also have to work within the bounds of the information we are given to an extent. If there's a mention of cardiovascular health, but no mention of funding, etc. then we have to work with what we got.

This is just my take, but I think the main idea is that the more of these questions we do, the more we get used to both

a) asking these questions at the right times

b) identifying repeated patterns of similar lsat questions in terms of their structures and what they are looking for

Eventually we'll be so used to doing this that we will be way more efficient and adept at finding the right answer quickly

In a way it is intuitive, but we can always train our intuition to be faster

For example,

Most dogs love to dig. Most things that are not dogs do not like to dig. Bob the Builder, who loves to dig, is probably a dog.

You see how the assumption is made that the human bob the builder is probably a dog just bc he likes to dig?

Let me know if the example helped!

Everyone is technically "All" here. But to negate a relationship is to create a scenario where that original relationship doesn't apply anymore. So when we negate #5, it becomes " Some people do not enjoy the movies."

So now, it is impossible to say that "everyone enjoys the movies" because we now have some people that do not enjoy them. We have successfully negated the original statement.

I believe that "The only" is group 1, it indicates the sufficient condition.

For question 3 with the freedom of speech policy, am I just overthinking when I say that I'm confused when JY claims that the irrationally = not rationally thinking? I am thinking that he is missing the middle ground (although rare) that the governments act neither rationally or irrationally, but just neutrally? or indifferently? As in no changes?

Adding on to the replies here, from my experiences, when the LSAT gives an "either/or" statement that is an "and/or" definition (like the case with Jon and the classes where there is the possibility he can enroll in both), the statement will include an addition that is something along the lines of "but he cannot be enrolled in both" if the LSAT wants us to look at the original statement as an "exclusive" definition of "or"

This lesson aims to teach us not to infer absolute claims from relative statements,

We are given the relative statement of "People tend to be less objective regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they do not possess extensive knowledge."

This statement solely focuses on the level of objectivity of people regarding two specific scenarios (studying a subject they know a lot about vs. studying a subject they do not know much about), but not all scenarios (scenarios outside of this sentence).

I think what JY is saying here is that just because someone is "less objective" or "more objective" than someone else, does not necessarily mean that they are not objective overall (in the grand scheme of things).

JY wants to make sure that we don't infer a GENERAL rule when viewing SOLELY this sentence (it happens more than we think, especially on the LSAT).

For example, instead of "objectivity" let's substitute that with "hungry."

"People tend to be less hungry regarding foods they dislike than with foods which they like." (I'm just using a similar formatted sentence to the one we were given).

JY is saying that even if we know that one person can be less hungry than another, there is still the possibility that both sides are still hungry in general.

Less objectivity does not mean the absence of objectivity. JY is warning us about making absolute claims that less objective = no objectiveness.

Given this statement in relative context, it is a common misconception to make an absolute statement like "those people are not objective." This is a pitfall that JY wants us to avoid.

Yes, Yes, Yes

AC E does not talk about any "narrow" floorboards at all. The premises look to support the conclusion THOUGH the "narrow" floorboards, not just any floorboards. There is no mention in AC E as to whether or not marble was narrow or wide.

I think your logic is right except for the fact that the stimulus said “Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers should driver re-education be recommended for them.” That use of the word "likely" is inherently opposite to the use of almost, bc the almost phrase = not likely. So only if these drivers are likely to be made responsible, can the drive re-education program be recommended. But this is not the case, the drivers are not likely to be responsible ,and because they are not likely to be made responsible, jail is the only option for this subset of drivers. The stimulus is stating that it HAS to be LIKELY that the drivers can be made responsible, and THEN you can recommend the re-education program. But the "almost always impossible" phrase = not likely, which means it can NEVER be "likely" that these drivers become responsible, so the driver re-education program can NEVER be recommended for drivers with large demerits and convicted of serious driving offenses. And the only other option is jail

maybe this is one of those times when the other answer choices make you infer more?

Hey guys I'm from NJ and would love to join as well!

Hey Jordyn, I'm also averaging mid 160s and am looking to take the LSAT in October! My goal is around a 174 and I would love to join the study group if possible!