@AlexMarko Did we get a different Q5? My Q5 shows C is correct, and it was about technology leading to people feeling different about life.

@Peterhinkle The conclusion kind of speaks hypothetically. "Recent research shows, this prediction [global warming causing tropical storms] is unlikely to be borne out." So, "Global warming probably will not produce more... tropical storms" is a pretty good restatement of that. Hope that helps!

This one took me 27 seconds too long. I feel like my brain turned to mush reading through the ACs and the Stim. I got it right, but man it took me a while to get there.

@Jakob Yeager I think it's less that some questions are faster or slower than others, more so some people are faster or slower at some types of questions than others. I suck at some kinds of questions that other people might fly through but I'm better at others that some people might struggle with.

I thought this was an "except" question because I didn't read the stem and just got done with the previous lesson. I was like wait how the heck did I get it wrong, my answer choice wasn't supported at all? ... Well, that's exactly why I got it wrong lol.

@Dillon Davidesfahani yes. I would love lessons like this on some of the level 5 difficulty questions. Maybe those will appear later in the course

@lesteryxue in psychology that is called System 1 thinking, and yes, we definitely want to use System 2 thinking during this test. Until the processes are trained enough to be System 1 thinking. Those people are the 180 scorers imo lol

@YuzhuoCao I think to show how easy it is to identify the conclusion in the first passage and get stuck in the traps. Then, he shows how it is just context to help that part of the lesson really sink in. For many this may be intuitive. For some, this may be mindblowing lol.

@Sameer Ahamad But they aren't making a conditional statement in the argument, so there isn't a sufficient or necessary condition. They're just saying they read an article that said that minivans and sedans get in less accidents, so they are going to get a minivan to lower their chances of an accident. That's mistaking correlation for causation. Similar logical error in principle, but not in technicality.

@clickbaitcowboy It's not a story the Jedi would tell you

@Mycatwenttoclawschool Many is more than one, which means that certainly without doubt at least one qualifies for that statement.

3/3 LFG !!!!!

My first instinct was B but then I fell for D. Should've gone with my gut. Why is it that I feel as though I understand the lawgic/logic, and then when I get to an LSAT question, I feel like I can't understand wtf they are saying anymore? Maybe I just need to practice more difficult questions?

Each of the many A -> B

C-> A<s>/D

That's a lot of chained logic. It seems so simple now that I see it laid out that way but when I'm working the question I feel like the introduction of the fourth element and the ordering of things is confusing me. Am I not practicing advanced enough logic chains to be able to intuitively get it? Do I need to slow down and answer more questions slowly before I start recognizing them quickly?

#help

For Q4, I came up with

Potions in hut -m-> poisonous and some beneficial effects

So, yeah, I did miss the some poisonous things have some benefit.

@JapjeetSuden Some pet cats who fantasize about attacking their owners live in a loving home.

Daaaang question 4 got me! I can see why though. I confused sufficient for necessary with pilots and those who perform lazy 8. Dangit. 4/5.

@IsaacZerby I think it could, but that's slightly more difficult to grasp and easier to fall into trap thinking.

@TSpriester You're correct! In the explanation, it offers two possibilities, one of which is a tie. "they move equally rapidly."

Some of these Lawgic translations are tricky for me, but I'm noticing in the explanations that I am not missing the concept and am understanding the meaning intuitively. If you are feeling the same way, I think it is safe to skip. This seems only intended for those who don't understand the nature of "some," "most," "all," etc.

@NityaMaid The negation is translated to some, because the sufficient clause necessary to negate the original statement is "Some people don't enjoy the movies."

@ArthurWhite /(D->F) looks like I'm going to say non dogs are friendly. I would say not all translates to D -s-> /F . It doesn't negate or contrapositive like conditionals. Short hand is translated different here.

@annajohnson2 Yes

@madelynroseandrews An overwhelming majority agreed with you. Heck, everyone agreed with you. But, that includes overwhelming majority, so to say an overwhelming majority agreed is true, too. If he said all, that's more exact and there's no room for me to be a smart-ass. That's the way I look at it anyway

@ArthurWhite Oh man. If profanity upsets you, then you are going to have a tough time in the professional world and being an attorney.

All means all, and that's all that all means.