Why is the Lawgic shorthand for Jedi and Force all of the sudden A and B instead of J and F in these examples? It makes it impossible to match english to the Lawgic shorthand in order to follow along. What are we doing here? #feedback

I'm coming back to this lesson from later in the curriculum and am just curious if anyone knows the answer or any exceptions.

Can we add "requires" "necessitates" and "implies" to the list of necessary indicators?

I know it is not a best practice to rely on an exhaustive list but I have seen these come up later, and as far as I can tell they always precede the necessary condition.

Hopefully I get some of the questions right on the LSAT.

Absolutely maddening that "always" and "every time" are different indicators.

"Sometimes, ambiguous key terms are allowed to shift in meaning. Sometimes not." oh goodie gumdrops

A pattern with wrong answers so far seems to be that they go too far in describing the author or the subject's intent. Seems that NA questions are all about sticking to objective fact, almost "playing dumb" in order to avoid extrapolating beyond what is in the stimulus.

Understanding that A is correct is one thing, that's reasonably straight forward.

Explaining why B is wrong is a *

How reliable is it to simply look to the conclusion to find the primary purpose?

I'll go back and review the curriculum for an answer on this as well, just figured I'd ask in case anyone feels they have a good answer.