You don't have to watch both of them...or highlight if you don't want to. It's your choice at the end of the day.

J.Y. says it in the explanation video.

But it's because D is exhibiting the part to whole flaw. The stimulus is exhibiting whole to part flaw. There's more videos on the difference in the Flaw Descriptive Weakening curriculum.

I think the point of Lawgic, or any analysis tactic we have been taught, is clarity. So, if mapping this stimulus would have made it easier to understand and search for in the answer choices then totally do it. For me personally, that would make this question more confusing.

Ultimately, do whatever makes the reasoning the clearest for you.

As for the second question, I don't know where I would even begin to map this stim.

All you really have is: fingerprints → Tannisch (if you are fingerprints on the property then you belong to Mr.Tannisch)

Then the argument assumes: perpetrator → /Tannisch (if you are the perpetrator then you are not Mr.Tannisch)

and then on the back of that assumption concludes: perpetrator → gloves (therefore if you are the perpetrator then you wore gloves)?

That is the closest thing to map that I can come up with for this argument.

I think you have to do POE. When it comes down to it, knowing that the wrong answers are definitely wrong is going to save you many more times than really truly understanding why the right answer is right.

I'm not from 7sage but maybe I can help. From my perspective, there is a lot of things wrong with (E).

For one, whether or not it's important just isn't at hand. Try the negation test- say it's not important to do. Okay...well. We're still trying to do it... so I ask the same question, why should I do it with paper and not paint? Thats where (D) says seeing color across varying contexts is helpful to your end goal. Therefore, (Conclusion) you should use paper because (Premise 1) paper can be used across varying contexts and paint can't. Now negate (D). Seeing color across varying contexts isn't helpful. Well then, based on the facts presented, I have absolutely no reason to use paper instead of paint. Which means you have no argument.

For another, (E) says it's important to for students to see the differences between using paper and using paint. So I guess now we're using both paper and paint and then comparing them? Thats fine...but thats not at all the scenario the stimulus laid out.

And then finally, your justification in choosing (E) relies on an entirely new assumption; that "if something is not important then, not only should we not bother doing it, we shouldn't even bother thinking about it." Which is pretty unwarranted.

Oh my gosh thank you so much! Don't be sorry, thats completely on me. I appreciate your help, it's fixed now.

Why does my screen say "no data available in table" when I click Show Results? 🙁

I think the use of the word believe would be more relevant in this case if we were deciding if the law makers are correct in their attribution of punishment to harm, because that's what the belief pertains to: they "believe" the punishment to be just for the harm. But thats not what's at question here. If the answer choice had said "Lawmakers believe that it is important to..." the use of the word believe would have been more relevant.

Try and remember that you shouldn't just look for patterns in words, you should understand the content and use words as indicators. The context the word is used in is suppppperrr important.

I think you should look back on the foundations lessons on the use of "or" on the LSAT.

In those lessons we learned that 'or' can mean 3 things: 1) and/or (the inclusive) 2)or but not both (the exclusive) 3) and. You are discussing type 2 which is a possibility,. However, we were told in those lessons that if the writers intend for 'or' to "mean one and not the other" we will be told explicitly; for example "Jane or John can come to the party but both of them cannot come."

Further, J.Y. told us that and 'and/or' meaning of 'or' is the most common on the LSAT, so, as a rule of thumb, interpret 'or' as the inclusive 'and/or' which explicitly stated would look something like this: "Jane or John can come to the party; they can both come if they want."