does the LSAT give questions with no arguments?

I wish it gave us the option to change the color of our text when doing the quiz! Personally, I enjoy seeing my answer and the correct answer match up, and if not, I would be able to see where I went wrong. #feedback

The Disney argument was the hardest one for me to read, but since he broke it down, it made it much easier for me to understand what the argument was about. Thank you!

#feedback

I think I understood the concept of creating the lawgic equation, but I did use different characters instead of "SC" and "i". I used "EPA" for equal protection analysis and had it as my superset, set b, and I used "IT" for immutable trait and had it as my subset, set a. I put H for homosexuality and placed it outside of my superset. This was my equation.

IT---->EPA

H/EPA

_

H/IT

I might have been wrong, but I do think I understood what needed to be negated. The argument is saying if homosexuality is not a part of the equal protection analysis then it must not be an immutable trait. If I did something wrong, please reply and let me know what you think!!!!

Whether a claim is false in the real world or not does not matter because the reasoning of the argument determines whether it's valid or invalid.

I suggest rewatching the video. Initially, when I first watched it, I questioned myself because, like some of you in these comments, I was told to leave my real-world knowledge outside. That still applies. You just have to assume a claim is correct if it's a valid argument.

Hi, I am interested! 21F living in Queens, but I can commute to Manhattan.

Is the author's point not the same thing as a conclusion?

In regards to question 4, does the concession point not need to be a full sentence? I am asking this because, in the previous questions, the concession points tend to be longer and/or stopped by a comma within the sentence. Question 4 is where I got the most confused because I thought that this concession point was too minimal to be considered a concession point due to the fact that the premise was also included in that same sentence.

Concession points almost downplay the author's argument, it does not necessarily support the argument.

I understand the author is just describing a perspective: the critics. Is it also possible that this paragraph shows the author leaning more towards in favor of EM, considering the end where the author mentioned the critics are missing the bigger picture when it comes to EM?