I could be wrong about this. But I think "or" could mean both. If it says A or B but not both, then the translation A-->/B is the same as /B-->A. If you only have "or", then the only thing we can be sure. of is /B--->A and /A-->B.

You are amazing!!!!! I'm very confused about this conditional logic translation as well; had to dig up your answer from almost one yr ago. I'm sure your LSAT went well, you are a Logic Mastermind after all!

Still have 3 months of time. Don't panic!

Thinking Aug or Sep, what about you?

Same....

you guys are born lawyers! Cherish the win!!

To me, A is trying to confuse contrapositive in causal logic being valid, not entirely irrelevant.

If you take stimulus and C being true, the two resistances are certainly correlated, but it cannot provide any support to the causation proposed in the stimulus. In another word, it doesn't answer the question asked in the stem.

I read the stimulus as it totally makes sense..... The amount of car thefts have declined in the past five years, because more thieves get caught now.... The only discrepancy I could even think of was why it didn't drop more dramatically, proportionally to the thieves getting caught... which led me choose E

I think we haven't hit the hardest on in this question category yet.... more to come

I think you mixed up condition vs. causation. Conditional logic is a formal logic so there is a contrapositive because you stimulate "must happen" rule, but causal logic is informal, I don't think contrapositive applies here.

#feedback "Causation v. Conditional" link is not working. I presume this video would be quite important to understand why JY applied double arrows of Lawgic in this stimulus. I've gone through all fundamentals available but cannot comprehend this piece.

It's the same thing. One of the basic fundamental lessons in the conditional logic section talks about conjunction. When conjunction "and" in the necessary condition, the arrows can be splitted into two branching from the sufficient condition.

I'm in exactly the same boat as you are. ESL, and 3/5 in one try for medium. MSS is harder for me than MC. I guess just keep practicing. I sometimes read things wrong as well. No shortcut that I can think of.

#feedback The last paragraph first sentence - "consistent with" should be "merely consistent with". Although I prefer video lessons like most other comments here pointed out, I don't mind reading to get the knowledge I need. But please make it correct so students can easily follow along. When you give a specific name in order to refer back later, it's hard to digest if the reference later recalls the wrong name....

I disagreed with the approach to eliminate the last necessary condition "not just based on the value". B and C relied on the contrapositive of the this condition to see why they are wrong - they led to the opposite direction of the contrapositive of this necessary condition to trigger the contrapositive of the original sufficient condition.

I don't quite understand why "or....but not both" would an indicator for bi-conditionals

I'm one of the confused group about question 3. When there is a "the" in front of "only", it is a sufficient condition indicator, but if I get rid of "the", it becomes necessary condition indicator. So if this sentence is "Only oral myths that have survived are the ones those were eventually written down.", Lawgic would be written down-->survived? This doesn't make much sense to me bcs those two sentences sound the same to me.

Based on the given conditional relationship, the negation is correct. But based on the common sense, it seems too absolute. I think I understand your confusion - the negation is counterintuitive, but you could understand it this way: the original logical condition is also counterintuitive, bcs a good legal system requires way more than just judges being independent. So the best way to interpret this exercise is to brush up your skill of assigning Lawgic from arguments. Don't over think it

I didn't even know Jedi was from Star Wars lol. But I found this example more suitable for ppl who are unfamiliar with the content like me to grasp the concept of conditional logic bcs it exactly proves JY's original point - the content doesn't matter, only the form does.

Hardest example for me to perceive so far: Jedi....