The answers where all shit to me, I could elim C, D and E, A sounded a lot better than B even though we where talking about punishment more than law. B's just a shitty inference.

Thank you logic games for allowing me to not scrutinize D a lot. All those Or games where if A happens or doesnt, what happens to B made- well those finally leaked on over.

Edit: The following below is actually the next lesson, that's probably where I remembered this from, but anyway I will leave it up if anything it might help someone.

Interesting. I would say think about it like this. Conclusion = (A) Sufficient condition, Necessary assumptuin= (B) Necessary condition

A→B

if we have A, then we MUST have B (as JY said, if anything goes missing in the necessary conditions list in this example, (/B) then we don't have the conclusion (/A)

Let's get crazier, let's add the Sufficient assumption as Z

Z(practically a unstated premise that offers absolute support for conclusion and other premise(s))→(validates)→A→(validates the existance of)→B

I included a description of what the arrows do, which allows the flow of this conditional.

If we don't have /B, we don't have /A, and then we don't have /Z. So in a way necessary assumptions are needed- by themselves they can exist with any conclusion attached to them, however, without them, any sufficient assumption fails that would be attached to a conclusion that would be attached to the necessary assumption.

Maybe someone might have an opinion on this?

I've been doing a lot of logic games and this just seems like the way to look at it but, I'm not an expert, I would suggest just trying this out and seeing if it works toward giving you the right answer

I had A, it had everything except what I felt was a conclusion of sorts.

Then I read D.

D just read "fuller". Not as precise and it had what i find trap comparisons (theme that occur in the stimmy that incorrectly mentioned in attribution)

Went back and said man its A, I know its A but then kept looking at D.

D is the regret. D is the fear of wanting to get the right answer creeping its head in and denying it.

Right right, also sorry for this late reply.

I actually came back to this again, after reading your response, to review this portion of the text thinking maybe only is modified by something - similar to the sufficient condition "the only" - possibly becoming a sufficient indicator for FME. However that was not the case.

Then I concluded that, given the order of the chain, only modifies assured in this portion of the text

(its really saying only assured "when" there is a FME, instead LSAT did LSAT grammar and stated it as .. having assured only...)

Ah ok I just got the conditions mixed. I thought the fact free market economy follows after only that it would be our necessary condition but I guess I’m missing some nuances in my grammar to make this mistake. Thank you for taking the time clearing this up. I get the question fully now.

Just so I'm on the right path towards understanding the logic here- its

IF you have tmu THEN you must have a Free econ, UNLESS it could be another economy?

so basically this (TMU→ECON) UNLESS COMMUNISM maybe achieves it, then we can write it this way if we want that to happen.

TMU - > Communism (maybe finally did it).

IDK if I'm allowed to make this assumption or if it even has a hint of being correct, but thats the only way I'm understanding this.

Second part says- if it doesnt have a free economy (any other economy applies) then they must not be trying to achive tmu

Communism (as an example of a non free market)-> tmu not likely

The flaw here is we don't know how likely they are in achieving it and that's also subjective too - we only know, through inferences, if they're compared to a free market econ that they won't achieve it as logically perfect as them.

--

Like im not even sure if my first conditional chain (TMU -> Free econ) is even correct even though the indicators are there. #help

I read it as, If you have public trust, then you don't necessarily have work experience. However, JY says its the opposite but I cant wrap my head around why.

I was really trying to find a way to question your logic, but you're right.

I got this answer right and made the error you mentioned.

Solving the case and correctly getting the clue are two different things.

Hat off to you.

I just want to add this so anyone can see a bit of translation I did.

I think the following is important to keep in mind as well.

Were not given a temporal sense who does the solving of cluses first. And just because we know that the detective has been given the logical strength to always solve for the correct solution, and the accomplice the opposite doesn't mean the reader does. For all we know its very possible that the detective comes up with a solution and then the accomplice counters it.

You made the correct point of not combining the chain simply because they're not logically appropriate to combine yet answer choice A does just that. #help

Went from getting 5 star problems right to getting this wrong. So, fml

I think this is the first ever 180 curved question I got right and I didnt even have to guess. Im so fucking happy.

Fairwarning: I havent touched LR in a few months. Im rusty but ill give it a shot.

Stim conclusion: Each mother can - that demonstrates must be true certainty as in each mother has the ability to do so 100% and always and no unless factor is given to demonstrate otherwise.

C says that they can do it - meaning each mother bat if they want to can do the thing that they absolutely have the ability to do. I think that's a fine distinction.

To further expand - according to the stim the mother bats "can" hear the sounds is at 100% certainty that they absolutely can hear this sound, while C's use of "can is different" - isnt always guaranteed to occur rather is has the possibility to occur and it can occur on a recurrence rate of 0-100% of the time.

Looking back on this problem, I actually forgot how to do the method of reasoning questions and this is a good time to review.

Again I could be wrong about answer choice C- i need to review.

This question felt like a pseudo banana republic version of a resolve the paradox QM rather than a principal question.

Let me make an argument around this.

This is when from is in the premise.

Some people claim that wildfires don't start in the kitchen, however this is not the case. Indeed that argument derives from lectures the professor made in class that one time, and those arguments where later found to be invalid.

--

Ok, that includes from in the premise.

now lets add it in the sub conclusion

Some people claim that wildfires don't start in the kitchen, however this is not the case. Indeed that argument is related to the lectures the professor made in class that one time, from this we see that those arguments where later found to be invalid. (IDK its not logical but im trying lol)

In this scenario it happens to be the case that it does indicate a end point of one premise and the start of whatever it possibly supports.

--

Now lets try and add it to the main conclusion

Some people claim that wildfires don't start in the kitchen, however from the information gathered this is not the case. Indeed that argument related to those lectures the professor made in class that one time, and those arguments where later found to be invalid.

--

This just seems to be a conjunction from however and the information. Tough to say that this indicates anything on its own.

So I mean from the examples above the most you could probably say is that yes it does indicate premise/conclusion however as you saw with the main conclusion it doesn't indicate that its the main conclusion.

At the very least you have something that can be a premise or conclusion it seems, at the most it can be a main conclusion indicator (was not in our case above). I think this is something to just not take as a guaranteed rule but something to just take notice of.

Thanks, I hope so- I hope it goes well for you too. Looking back at this with fresh eyes I can see why its easy to think that from can act as a conclusion indicator. Because it links one thing with another - at the very least it can potentially guide you to a conclusion. However that may not be the main conclusion so careful with this I guess lol

C is also wrong because the phenomenon MUST occur according to the stim, not that it CAN occur

It can act as a conjunction between a premise and a sub conclusion or conclusion probably like this - but not always the case. Sometimes its just there to make the sentence make sense like the above stim does.

Bob likes apples, -from this we can - conclude that hes a psychopath.

Originally I chose B, then what you said hit me as well and changed my answer.

Just to rehash- the authors conclusion is directly contradicting the some peoples contextual argument right? That is, by saying it what you're saying is impossible (in lsat lingo) because I have evidence that states it is impossible?

On another note this would be not a correct weakening answer (lets say we where asked to weaken the context rather than the main argument) because it directly attacks the contexts conclusion right?

#help

Look maybe I did this wrong, BUT I saw the word but and knew that most likely what im dealing with is context - which generally seems to be something that is pre-existing prior to the authors conclusion. So I looked at the answer choices and boom picked E since it was the only thing that kind of described what context is lmao

Dude, I had this right on timed. During blind review I had this nagging feeling that these AP questions usually do not have a MC answer choice as the right answer. Well, shit.