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

Same, I'm so bad at mentally parsing out "not significantly more similar than"

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 *

I think it is because the answer choice (all of them, actually) are structured as quotes or thoughts by the person. If they are saying or thinking "this could harm you" then obviously they believe that to be true.

Contrast that to answer choice A, where they realize the potential for harm only with the benefit of hindsight. The implication there is that at the time of the action, they didn't believe that to be the case.

Agree! Very curious how long this was supposed to take. Those are some lengthy answer choices.

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.

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.

Also exactly how I did it and I'm wondering the same.

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

Always read it left to right, and remember that this arrow: "→" always means "sufficient"

I'm gonna try to correct a couple parts of your comment.

"When we negate both claims, the original necessary condition now becomes sufficient..."

- Correction: When we negate both claims, the negation of the original necessary condition now becomes sufficient.

Try not to get hung up on the actual words and just follow the form. Nowhere are we saying that "not being a cat is necessary for not being a mammal"

- If cat, then mammal.

- If not mammal, then not cat.

Mammal is more restrictive than cat. If something is not a mammal, it definitely is not a cat. He explains this well in the second half of the video, using earth as an example of a non-mammal and therefore a non-cat.

This one threw me for a loop until I slept on it. "Accustomed to" implies something having a "usual" state for a period of time (it doesn't really matter how long that period of time is.) "Lower than" indicates a change from that state.

So perhaps it would help to think of "Accustomed to" as "Usual state" and "lower than" as a new, "unusual state". That gives you:

1. old usual state vs new unusual state

2. which one is lower?

3. Winner: New unusual state

Swapping out the words you get:

1. accustomed to vs. now

2. which one is lower?

3. Winner: now

I'm not a huge fan of the use of the word "now" either but this helped me.