how is this question LinkA? linking location and popularity?

based in charlotte! would love to join :-)

I selected A not because I overlooked the difference between the two groups, but because I clocked it, and thought that difference between browse vs. rely was the point; instead, A just tells us who is at the crux of this argument :-( SO CLOSE

this was my first line of thought as well! the fact that this is our first thought speaks to the fact that we know the assassination attempt failed and that's all we know - just because the assassination attempt failed, it doesn't mean she gets to do her speech! something else could have happened - we just don't know!

"The third premise (AAF), the one that affirmed the failure of the assassination attempt only satisfies a necessary condition of Senator Amidala delivering her speech (second premise). Satisfying a necessary condition yields no valid conclusions. The Senator is alive so may deliver her speech but she isn't bound to do so."

i think we're on the right track! :-)

i've understood most everything in this module up to this part which seems to the most convoluted and feels like it would be most useful in a LG section which no longer exists on the lsat since august 🤔 idk though

i would say so! being 5+ minutes after the last bell certainly meets the criteria for being late, but what if kumar had a doctor's note or something? i'm not sure if this adds to your thought but this was sort of floating around in my head

i think in this scenario one of the most important things is not to confuse group 1 indicators for the sufficient and group 2 indicators for the necessary - just because the language in the late for school example is very similar (if vs. only if), we have to remember that both phrases indicate different things. if = sufficient, and only if = necessary. if we confuse the two, our understanding of the claim or argument is thrown off completely which would be a bummer because it leads to incorrect assumptions and inferences. i hope this helps

i think i get it - but this sentence is really confusing me - i heard it in the video, and scrolled down to check if i heard right, but i'm not quite understanding the semantics of the following: "Why then do I conflate these two different types of arguments? Because I've never seen the LSAT create trap answers that trade on failing to make such a distinction." can anyone dumb this down for me?