The author is attempting to make an analogous argument with reference to an unstated principle--one that is up to us to identify.

The first sentence, "Swimming pools should be fenced to protect children from drowning, but teaching children to swim is even more important", lays the groundwork for said principle.

In essence, the author is asserting that, though x may be important to y, z is even more important. This principle, she states, can be applied in more ways than just drowning prevention.

She analogizes it to soft drinks and candy. So, if we were to frame our answer in the same exact structure she establishes in the first sentence, the "most logical" answer would be C, because it completes the analogy.

I hope this helps!

got it right initially and wrong on the blind review omg

Actually, I think that is the ultimate goal of doing these exercises! This question had a target time of 0:36. I think this target would be impossible--or at the very least, difficult-- to achieve if you were to read through the entirety of the stimulus AND eliminate answer choices. The idea is to develop an "intuition" sharp enough to QUICKLY (and correctly) identify the main conclusion and anticipate what the answer might be BEFORE even looking at the answer choices, which it seems you have done!

Omg same.. I was so irritated when I finished blind review because I was SO confident in my answer lol

ok i cant delete this comment but nevermind lol

#feedback the question provided in "quick view" is not the same as the one J.Y. parses in the video

thank you for this!

LILIAN CHEWEDDD

I did not understand the explanations at all! Everything was making sense until I got to this skillbuilder

I am actually crying. I have no idea what this is saying

Yes, that is fine! The only purpose of translating an English statement to Lawgic is to demonstrate how easy it is to manipulate the statement's conditions. If it achieves the opposite effect, then you certainly do not have to use it!

you do not have to use them all! The point is just to help you develop a skillset that allows you to confidently tackle a question on the LSAT. If 1 and 3 are easier for you to understand, then use those!

I could be wrong, because to tell the truth, I am not so certain of the answer myself. BUT, i don't think this can be kicked into the domain because it is cutting into the subset of (or modifying) "kingdoms in Westeros". To me, that indicates that it WOULD NOT be an uncontested variable because the broader argument is telling us that IF a kingdom's economy relies predominantly on trade then it is GUARANTEED that they will "support foreign policies that aim to secure peace". Say instead that the kingdom's economy relies predominantly on agriculture; then, there is no guarantee that they would support foreign policies that aim to secure peace.

In other words, the condition "whose economies rely predominantly on trade" actively shapes the logic of the argument by defining a subset. It cannot be brought up into the premises because then that would change the conclusion.

I am not getting this at alllll, omg!

me too! I don't know when--or how--to drill these problems!

The conclusion is invalid because the fact that assassination attempt fails does not satisfy any of the argument's conditions.

As J.Y. points out, it only reaffirms that the necessary condition was triggered, it does NOT indicate that Senator Amidala ever delivered her speech. In order for the argument to be valid, we would need to include a premise that EXPLICITLY tells us that she gave her speech--we cannot just infer this.

When you translate the question into "lawgic" notation, it is a little easier to see:

SAS-->/P

SAS-->AAF

Trying to link these claims together is impossible. We cannot draw the conclusion that the bill didn't pass just by virtue of the fact that Senator Amidala is alive, we NEED to know that she gave the speech.

I could be wrong, but I don't think this answer captures the original logic. The usage of the word "if" indicates a sufficient condition (i.e. "if he were over 40"). By flipping the clauses, "wanting to learn" becomes the sufficient condition, and being over 40 becomes the necessary condition.

The original clause: If Amar is over 40, we can be absolutely certain that he WILL NOT want to learn how to ski. However, the reverse isnt necessarily true. Just because he doesn't want to ski, this does not mean he is over 40

Your answer: if amar does not want to learn, then he MUST be over 40

Your contrapositive: if amar is NOT over 40, then he MUST want to learn how to ski.

I believe the idea is to drill "lawgic" notation until it becomes second nature. Ideally, you wouldn't have to take the time to translate the stimuli into lawgic notation because you will have practiced it so often that you can quickly and confidently identify the necessary and sufficient conditions.

Athena "exists" purely for the sake of argument: to satisfy-- or in this case, fail-- the necessary condition.

In a conditional argument, the purpose of the first premise in a syllogism is to establish a subset/superset relationship ("If one is a Jedi, then one is a force user").

The second premise dictates whether a particular person (or thing) is a member of the subset established by the first premise.

Athena doesn't necessarily have to exist "in real life" (if that is what you are asking)-- she exists within an isolated context, which is the syllogism itself. The key is to think very narrowly about what is being defined. Athena doesn't have to "come from" anywhere, she is just being used to prove (or disprove) membership in a given superset.

Take this classic syllogism for example:

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The second premise is telling us that Socrates is a member of the superset [mortal things]. From that premise, we can reasonably (and logically) conclude that Socrates is mortal, because he is a member of the superset established by the first premise

The goal is to internalize it so that you can identify these things intuitively

Assumptions, in this context, are derived from the argument rather than from preexisting knowledge. In this question, the premise--that not all mammals are suitable to be kept as pets--categorizes tigers as if they are mammals. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, in the context of this argument, that Tigers are mammals. Even though the conditions of this argument reflect real world knowledge, it operates within its own logical framework independent of real world knowledge. In other words, the assumption is derived from the argument itself, NOT from the biological fact that tigers are mammals.

I agree! I wish I had read this BEFORE taking the diagnostic test, lol!