@supermario929 or anyone else seeing this. It is not attacking the premises but the support. plus....there is a term shift from excessive blinking to just average blink rate. okay fine average blink rate is fine I concede but excessive blinking is linked to some quality we care about thereby becoming relevant to the premises just as drama mama llama or whatever that person's clever name said.
assumption fleshed out: 1 thief per car. Attack it.
Hi y'all this is great review for one of the harder questions in this set. It's about books and medical health. I think JY's explanation here helps understand how one could draw a piece of the implicit conclusion in that question to then point out the flaw. I highly recommend checking that question out after watching this.
Hey! So, its C-->F unless (group 3) DEC SO:
/DEC--> (C-->F) because you negate the sufficient and DEC is after the unless so becomes negated and the sufficient.
according to some philosophical hypothetical formal logic blah blah you can then take the C out the brackets and have /DEC and C-->F. HOWEVER. IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THEN YOU FAIL THE CONJUNCT AND RULW FALLS AWAY.
Conversely, you can be sure that if you are not fined then
/F--> DEC or /C. Let me know if this makes sense; I'm not an admin or anything but I've been doing this for a while.
A- strengthens if anything
B- oh man I hate insurance companies
C- Yeah and I'm encouraged to make friends and be more social pssh
D- literally why are you here you're helping them
E- okay I think you're a shitty shitty answer choice but you know what you're all I got. This is a 5-star question with only one conceivably right ac IF you just keep some aggression and remember that there are 2 ways to a right answer. That being said, there's a comment down there by MichaelScott which, when combined with this explanation, ties together a crucial aspect of the ac and language in the stimulus.
P.S. Think of the office dudes as baseline.
Me: Knows correlation does not equal causation.
Also me, prior to a minor tremor, driving away from the fault zone, with neck ticks: "INVALID ARGUMENT #2 INVALID ARGUMENT #2"
may be too late for you pal. but this by no means attacks the premise. attacking the premise here would look like "actually personal gardens did not increase" or "actually sales did not go up". That's some bloody brilliant bs right there because you accept the premises as true. Never attack them. Usually, I just abide by it and if im terribly unlucky ill miss one single question out of 1000. This introduces some doubt and says.....oh okay....so personal garden sales did go up....ahh yes I accept produce prices went up too....and these companies increased their sales. Accept that. and even after accepting that if you introduce E, it makes you think "whoa, oh okay. now - after E- I'm not so confident its the produce prices going up." Like Obi-Wan said, just introduce that light in between the GIVEN (repeat that in your head), GIVEN PREMISES, and the conclusion they drew from THEIR premises.
AHHHHHHHHHH THANK GOD FOR MICHAEL SCOTT. For real, bloody brilliant explanation. Thanks so much - those last two paragraphs brought it home.
Hi! So I understand why D is correct but I thought that the sentence "the position that X is unsustainable" was the position the author was trying to defend. In that he/she is defending that it is unsustainable. Why is this thought process not right? It's why I picked B
Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-3-question-17/
I thought the “not sustainable” was the conclusion. In that he is defending it’s not sustainable #help (B)
"Fly over the trees and see the forest" - The hero we need
Thanks so much!
I'll have you know there is another dictionary definition for average - nautical insurance.
Will never understand what makes this a 180 q
man people definitely have different strengths and weaknesses
"oh great you put 'if' in the middle of a sentence again"
Okay so for this question I got it right but would have taken way less time if I understood something. I've been doing logic for a while but this one got me a little tripped.
If
A--> (C or D)
we can contra to /C--> (/A or D)??
I thought we could have to do it as such
A-->/C-->D
/A or /C-->D
/C or /A-->D
C-->/A --> D
C--> (A or D).
Where am I going wrong?
Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-24/
A→(C or D) can be contraposed to C→(/A or D) ? I thought you would need to bring the whole statement out or something #help
Am I the only one who does a test and while looking at an AC I think "man I can't wait to see J.Y wreck this"
On questions like this with such a short structure and key premise conclusion support, don't look at the answers before you have a gist of the argument. In fact, just never do that. All these questions (barring the 180 difficulty ones that take a lot of compressions), can be made much easier by just focusing on what matters. Abide by the premises and you'll be safe.
treats a sufficient as necessary, my dudes, and not the converse
Hey Isaiah4110, not sure if I'm a bit late, but for anyone else here's why A is wrong.
The condition that A serves as a referent for is a sufficient condition whereas the claim in the question stem is actually a quasi necessary condition. I hesitate to state necessary because it did not give us a must factor.
In order to do X, it is important for Y. But by no means does having Y guarantee X.
In order the be the world's fastest runner, it is important to have two legs and be Jamaican.
Welp, I have two legs and I'm Jamaican, so where's my medal? It's not a sufficient condition for getting a medal, sadly.