thanks I have no idea what a rebate is

Papua New Guinea out here catching strays

DAMN

I cannot believe I got this right

I did not expect enantiomers and stereoisomers to pop out here. Absolutely disgusted

I don't understand my brain, I got this one right but got the previous one ,which was easier, wrong.

I wanted to choose D but I lacked the confidence and chose B instead :(

I got the answer right but I am a major over thinker and had a whole debate in my head

down

A tip my chem professor taught us is to isolate the two things being compared and flip them.

So, with smoking and lung cancer rates being positively correlated, an immediate reaction would be to say smoking causes lung cancer. It's also possible that lung cancer causes one to smokes. That doesn't really make sense, and that is the point. Your brain has biases that want to make certain conclusions or connections. But it's your job as a scientist or rather as an LSAT taker to be objective and look at the evidence or explanation provided.

I am starting to develop an irrational hate towards Game of Throne

Number 2 kicked my ass :(

So group three in essence say (not X-->Y)

This is saying X≠ Y

So the difference is that on the LSAT the exam might be this:

Without adequate medical supplies underserved populations will continue to suffer from lower life expectancy.

No amount of medical supply will raise the life expectancy of underserved population.

Those are two vastly different things being said. One says the amount of medical supplies is a factor in the outcome. And the other says that the amount of medical supplies is not a factor at all.

This might be pedantic , but it bothers me that they label it 3.1 and label it 3.10.

It's supposed to be 3.01--3.10, otherwise it's just the same

The issue is double negatives make Lawgic a bit slower. Think about it this way:

Without X there can be no Y

Y-->X

/X-->/Y

So an example could be: You will not pass the exam without studying.

[studying]=X, so if you do not study, there is no Y= [not pass the exam]

(Mind the double negative)

The logic here is that studying is necessary to pass the exam. The negation is telling us the conditions to make something necessary.

Another example:

No X unless Y

X-->Y

/Y-->/X

Example:

You will drown unless you learn to swim

X [You will drown] UNLESS Y[you learn to swim]

Unless points to the necessary condition. There are two scenarios. One where you drown and one where you do not drown. What is NEEDED to not drown? Learning to swim.

So, if you don't learn to swim it is certain you will drown. But if you do learn to swim you will not drown. I

I hope that clears it up

Once you do these enough, it's easy to identify them

A only if Y

A-->B

/B--> /A

Only A are(when, where etc) B

A-->B

/B-->/A

It's not strictly related, you can skip the grammar lessons. The LSAT is also an endurance reading test, the better you are at understanding the english language, the easier it becomes to digest the exam. It's like a basketball player taking ballet, ballet teaches balance, timing etc.

I really should've paid more attention in 4th grade.

I definitely agree, they should have made it clear that it is a sub conclusion. "This is not a sustainable, long term solution" has an independent relationship with the premise and it's integral to the MC: "they should stop..."

It confuses me as well, a good trick is use, is turning the conclusion into a question and asking if any of the previous statements would answer it. It's not foolproof but it helps identify the what each statement is and whether or not it's an argument.

interested

You are looking for logical consistency not facts. For example if you own a black dog, and your friend owns a black dog, you can say all dogs are black. Now, this may not be true and evidence is weak but it is perfectly logical. It's important to separate facts from logic when reading this, even lies can be logically sound.

This is like math inductive vs deductive reasoning, and proving or disproving conjectures.