Simple as that hahah

and yet this question is rated as moderately difficult.

@sarahmacrorie819 I just read this question again, and yes you are right. The number of facilities being doubled means more doctors and more medical services which means people are admitted and are taken care of, and that leads to less fatalities.

I know the can't here means the ability to make tough decisions, but isn't it also suggesting a conditional concept?

For Question 4's last setence, @Kevin_Lin says that there is no explicit conditional indicator, but what about " can't" ?

Barbies who don’t want to take responsibility can’t make tough decisions.

Isn't that a group 4 conditional indicator?

So we translate "financial problem solved" to "do not have finacial problems" ?

I know those two terms are basically the same thing, but I hesitated because I thought this goes against what we have been told throughout the module to take the literal meaning of the concepts.

@dej Thank you!

All I am doing is translate it from English to Lawgic. It is hard, but I know the actual LSAT stimulus will hit harder. I hope these things are gonna stick with me.

The author thinks that the 'actor refusing a part' is equal to censorship. He is kind of saying that actor's refutal is not wrong, so why should censorship be wrong, then?

Since he considers "actor refusing a part" and "censorship" equal, but does not provide justification how these two things could be equal or related, his argument is flawed. Option E, therefore, is correct.

Why does the title say " Skill Builder - Group 2 Translations 3" while the questions have a mix of both Group 1 & 2 indicators?

God, this was such a ridiculously hard to understand question even though I got it right. But my reasoning is far from from truth. I can not even explain it hahah. After I listened to to J.Y.'s reasoning and of course read the discussion section, which is so underrated, I realized what the problem was.

Just writing it out to have a clear understanding:

First thing I did wrong was read the stimulus wrong.

The Plaintiff requested to question each codefendent WITH their legal counsel, but WITHOUT other codefendants or those cofedendants' lawyers.

Let's say A, B, C are codefendants. The Plaintiff requests to question:

• A with their lawyer only (B, C or their lawyers NOT allowed in the room)

• B with their lawyer only ( A, C or their lawyers NOT allowed in the room)

• C with lawyer only ( A, B or their lawyer NOT allowed in the room )

So how does sharing a lawyer is relevant in this situation:

Let's say A and B are the two codefendants who share the same lawyers.

Plaintiff requested that I want A with their lawyer alone, I want B with their lawyer alone, the same for C, WITHOUT the presence of other codefendants and their lawyers.

But, for A & B, that is not possible because they share the same lawyer.

When A is questioned with her lawyer, that means B's lawyer is also in the room. And that is against the Plaintiff's request.

Now, the court will not add the burden on codefendants and ask them" Go get a new lawyer just becasue I want to fulfill the plaintiff's request" becasue every defendant has the right to have their own legal counsel present even if that codefendant share the same lawyer with another codefendant.

B has the assumption needed so Judge's order can be sort of justified.

My brain hurt while trying to understand Kumar's case.

Anyways, what I understood from this lesson and from explanation in the comment section mostly (thanks to people clarifying it!), "only if" has exceptions. Kumar being late does not automatically put him in the subset of " cited as late". He could be. Or, he could not be cited as late; for example, he informed the school in advance about his medical appointment and arriving late, so the teacher would not put him as late. But the argument is silent in that regard.

Below is a basic example that helped me better understand Kumar's case:

It is a cat only if it is an animal.

We can NOT say:

If it is an animal, it is a cat.

Could be any animal e.g. dog, bird...

Being an animal is a necessity, but it is not sufficient for being a cat.

If one prepares for the LSAT, then one is going to law school. Sarah is not going to law school; therefore, Sarah does not prepare for the LSAT.

LSAT→LS

s/LS

______

s/LSAT

I am trying to understand the reasoning given in the video for the invalidity of the argument below:

If an action is performed out of self-interest, then it should not be considered generous. This business-owner donated a billion dollars to a charity. Her action was not motivated by self-interest in any way. Thus, it should be considered generous.

I do understand that the argument is invalid, but my reasoning is that the business-owner's action (donating money) was out of self interest, so that means it should not be considered generous. The conclusion says the opposite, so the argument is invalid.

Would appreciate it if someone could clarify it.

Let's look at these examplese

• If a baby is hungry, then it must be crying.

• If you are in Texas, then you must be in US.

We could re-wrtie the above statements as below

• If a baby is NOT crying, then it is NOT hungry.

• If you are NOT in the US, then you are NOT in Texas.

We can NOT say:

If the baby is crying, then it must be hungry.

Because:

There could be other reasons that the baby is crying. e.g. being sick, thirsty ...

Here, being hungry is sufficient, and crying is the necessity. Knowing a baby being hungry is sufficient to say that it must be crying. However, knowing a baby crying is not sufficient to say that it must be hungry. Just like being in Texas means you are 100% in US. However, being in the US does not guarantee that you are based in Texas. You could be anywhere in the US.

I answered this question correctly, but my understanding of D was that it weakens the argument by stating :

The number of hospital emergency facilities being doubled in the last five years could mean that more people had accidents and were taken to the emergency. This suggests counterstatement.

More emergency cases - less skillful drivers.

I feel like I have to repeat the comparative section.

@ArmaniHunter05 Thanks for the clarification!

@brandenesrawi Yes, that helps a lot. Interglacial sounds like a specific scientific terminology to me and it is hard to imply " glacial".

But, when answering questions, I think it is stated in a way that we can imply it.

When doing drills, I was too hesitant to imply things, but this example is helpful.

@ZealousAltruisticMode Exactly! there is a lot of manipulation that I personally didn't sign up for lols

@AnandChoudhary Thank you! Replacing it with "novels", It makes sense now.

For the first example, can we re-write it like below?

Sorghum is more closely related morphologically to some cultivars of corn than most other cultivars of corn are.

Becasue we are still keeping the comparison between

Shorgum

and

most other cultivars of corn

Any insights?

Is this still a comparative statement? and if yes, how?

Tom’s recipe for lasagna is easy to follow for most people.

If the concentration of air pollutants is above normal for a prolonged period, then there are many more respiratory issues.

Simple example:

If the weather is rainy, there is more traffic in the city.

It is implied that there is more traffic in the city when the weather is rainy than when the weather is not rainy.

People should feel no more responsible for economic disasters than for military invasions.

It is like saying:

Anna should feel no more worry for her work than for her upcoming exam.

That means, Anna should worry equally about both her work and upcoming exam.

Or if anything,

Anna should worry more about her upcoming exam than her work.