For conditionals, I always think of them as a cause and effect relationship. If x action occurs, then y will be the result. If I hit someone, it is enough to assume but it is necessarily the case that I will go to jail.

Because section 3 does not have a cause and effect relationship, then it is not a conditional statement. It is just a statement.

The conditional statements do not need to make sense in real life as long as they make sense logically. Valid or not valid, given the statements. Do not bring in outside information when you are practicing for the lsat, and only use the information that is given.

Dear LittlePickleBigWorld,

I can explain how I understand the content. For me, this is how I am interpreting everything, given the Jedi example:

1. If one person is enough to assume (i.e sufficient enough) to be a jedi, then one is required to know how to use the force.

In the context of this example, the jedi is the subset & the force is the superset.

2 Luke, who is a member, is a Jedi.

That means that Luke has membership in the subset.

3 Therefore, Luke uses the force.

Because Luke has membership in the subset, it is required that he knows how to use the force.

From my understanding, “that” is always the object predicate because it is composed of an “object,” “verb,” and “object.” The “verb” and “object" is what makes a predicate.

Example 1: He ate food (Subject Predicate/ Subject + Verb)

Example 2: He ate food that his mother cooked in the oven.

For the second example, the “his mother cooked in the oven” is the object predicate or object + verb + object. Moreover, I would not state that the object clause is a conclusion unless there is an indicator word that explicitly makes it a conclusion like “so what.” If there is not, then the sentence would be a statement/background information.

Hey, I can explain my thought process for 5.3 and 5.4.

5.3: From my understanding of 5.3, the object-predicate is a one subject two predicate sentence. Hence, the “it” is the main subject that “can’t continue to bake traditional bread” and “switches to a recipe that uses cornmeal. The “It” being a referential for “bakery.”

5.4: Like stated in 5.3, a similar logic would be applied. The “it” would not be able to continue playing electric guitar, so it switches to an unplugged performance. The “it” would a referential for the band.

Yes, 2.1 would be unchanged. The “because” signifies a conclusion, which a premise is necessary for. Hence, the premise would be what “which” is referring to.

For 1.4, the word “his” would not be a referential because we know what “his” is. “His” is "the university course "while referentials refer to sentences/subjects/objects that need context to understand. Hence, why “who” is a reference to Jack.