Bruh this question is so sad, wtf is wrong with these hypotheical scientists

Try to go off of tone, read the passage like it is someone talking to you about the specfic subject. It's much more reliable than looking for specific words, since they can change so much and have so many different meanings depending on context.

10/13 on Hard! (only 23% incorrect vs 71% expected incorrect) I'm so happy I could cry. It def took a little over the goal time I want but still...those low res summaries are gonna save me on test day.

I like the idea that we are only looking for an alternative hypothesis that disproves the original (for causal realtionships), it makes so much sense to see it that way. I thought that I had to use the same method from the strengthen.

Got the LSAT in 11 days, reading comp is about to be crushed, just gotta lock it in

just think of it like this:

A: the thing that is enough to make B happen (sufficient)

B: the thing that is needed for A to happen (necessary)

When negating we are not saying the opposite of the statement, we are saying that you can have A without B;

J(being a jedi) and not F (being able to use the force)

Meaning that being a jedi does not require being able to use the force, not "to be a jedi, one must not be able to use the force)

By doing this you are essentially saying the relationship between A and B is not true and that they can exist without one another. Lemme know if that makes sense! You got this!!

I would appreciate if the times stated on each lesson/section were a little more accurate or just showed how long it actually took you to go through the section. It causes a lot of anxiety to think you have to spend 30+ mins on a skill builder that takes less than half the amount of time.

I think the point of it is so we can move faster through problems, cause once it becomes second nature you'll be able to naturally associate the different parts of the argument with letters instead of big chunks of words.

Its important to recognize where assumptions are not explicitly stated. In simple terms it would be like a recipe, you cannot have an apple pie without apples. Just like how you cannot have a valid conclusion if there is a missing rule.

In this hypothetical say we only need flour, butter, milk and apples to make an apple pie. But in the recipe were given it only says:

Gather some ingredients like flour, butter and milk. Bake at 350. Let cool for 50 minutes. Then we have apple pie.

But in this case it doesn't make any sense. How can you have an apple pie with no apples? We have to look at the facts we are presented with and determine how they would flow logically. If we have all our ingredients, but they don't make an apple pie thats how we know something is missing.

To solve this, we would simply look at the subject of debate; its an APPLE pie. What ingredient are we missing? Apples! This is like a really simple version of it, but you get the jist. Don't overthink it too much and equate smart with simple, look at the structure not the content.

I'm interested as well!