If I did it like:

Idea 1: American attended

Idea 2: Dictator's party

Negate Idea 1 and make it "necessary": dictator's party -> /American attended

Translate to English: If it's a dictator's party, then no American attended

Would this still be correct? I think I messed up at breaking up the predicate?

Can someone further elaborate on how the negation technique would've been helpful in ascertaining that AC D is correct? Thanks!

How would we negate "all political systems that aim at preventing conflict are legitimate"?

Would it be

There is at least one political system that doesn't aim at preventing conflict that is legitimate

or

There is at least one political system that aims at preventing conflict that is illegitimate

Can someone explain why B and D are not relevant? When we're doing flaw questions, should we just analyze what's given to us, and not consider other possibilities beyond the premises?

What I got:

sub-conclusion: love = feeling -> /sense

(premise: feelings ->/control;

premise: /control -> /sense)

------------------------------------------------

conclusion: love = feeling -> /interpret

I know the missing link is /sense -> /interpret, but I'm not sure how to translate AC D to give us that.

"Promises should not be interpreted in such a way that they make no sense."

What role does "should" play in this, if at all? If I'm only considering the conditional indicators we learned on 7Sage, I know I'm looking at "no", which is negate necessary, and wouldn't that give us:

/interpret -> /sense ?

I was thrown off by this question. I skipped past B, bc I thought, in terms of LSAT logic, "smaller" doesn't quite cut it. We don't know how this one difference impacts the columnist's claim, if at all. Therefore, I thought E was the answer, bc it provides something that directly answers to the stimulus (or, at least, one part of it), which is that the investment "is likely to have a big payoff in several years." I thought E weakens this statement bc it says that those other cities didn't see any returns in the first few years, and I equated several and few, so I took E to be the most powerful answer in weakening the columnist's claim.

What I did was:

I -> S;

!H^I

-----

!H^S

Where I = immutable trait; S = suspect class; H = homosexuality.

Can someone explain how I can get to the right answer?

For Q3, how is "which indicate that they are actually under additional stress" an argument and not a premise/context?

Are you guys both watching the vid and reading the article on only one?

Could someone explain how pointing out that the premises used to support the conclusion aren't actually relevant (e.g. Titanic being used as justification for the Avatar being the best movie) isn't a valid weakening? Or could someone provide a valid weakening using this example?

I did large nurseries -> disease-free

Since "only" was used, was it not okay for me to use the conditional arrow as opposed to the "most" arrow?

To clarify, the only manipulation that can be done with <-s-> is just flipping the two ideas?

As in:

/art <-s-> participant =

participant <-s-> /art

I can't, for example, do:

It is not the case that some participants are not active in art = All participants are active in art =

participant -> active

Could someone explain the reasoning behind this?

What tripped me up the most was the temporality. So here's a timeline:

1. W's approval rating = 52%

2. Ethics violation accusation

3. ~50% believe the accusation

4. W's approval rating = 52%

In this format, it's clearer to see that his approval rating didn't change bc maybe the 48% who didn't approve of W had been in disapproval even before the actual accusations. This also lets us make a reasonable assumption that they were the "almost half" of respondents who believed that W is guilty of ethics violations.

I don't love AC A bc it doesn't really touch on how/why the rating didn't decrease (e.g. addressing why the residents didn't believe in the accusations and why these accusations didn't cause them to change their approval ratings, etc.), but it does explain why the rating stayed the same.

Can someone explain the logic/lawgic of "not just"? I thought to include it as "and investment value", because I thought it applies as "in addition", as opposed to something that can be replaced once the other two conditions (authenticity & intrinsically desirable) are met.

But I thought in a PSA, you should go for the most strongly worded AC. So for B, I thought "always" made this more attractive than C's "sometimes." I've seen the ambiguity of the "producers" (e.g. the exporters or the domestic ones) being cited as a reason to choose against this AC, but what other reasons are there?

I feel the most confident using the Joint Sufficient Condition Framework, but I wanted to confirm if my thinking is correct.

If I wanted to apply two separate conditionals, should I put whatever I see first at the core, and then just build onto that core as I encounter by putting it on the outside?

In the example

All residents of The Beresford are prohibited from keeping pets in their apartments unless the animal serves a legitimate medical purpose.

Should I do "all" (Group 1) first:

Residents -> prohibited

And then I tack on "unless" (Group 3):

/purpose(residents->prohibited)

Is this a viable framework?

Can someone explain question 3?

I got it right by assuming "anyone" is very inclusive, like most Group 1 indicators, so I put infected + week as sufficient.

But I also feel like antibodies -> infected and week could work: if you have antibodies, that is enough to say that you've been infected and it's been a week.

I get that AC E is right, but I'm still hung up on AC C: can't it be said that, for example, a cashier is still leaking "trade secrets" by collecting and stacking up cash in a certain way to make it faster, which could've been something learned from a previous cashier role, which just so happens to be a competitor?

I get how A is correct now, but can someone explain why E is wrong?

Can someone explain why B is wrong?

A question about the general definition of "may" on the LSAT: does it always mean "probable", and so anytime that it is used in a conditional, it renders it invalid? When I read the stimulus, I took it to mean as "allowed" e.g. "you may go".

Also, for B--I thought it had merit because we were given 2 mechanisms (nibbling/avoiding infected kin) for 2 purposes (one for the inclusive fitness theory: increasing total genetic representation, one for own fitness, accordingly with the traditional view). Is this wrong because 1) even within the tadpole example, there was a caveat (so it's kinda like 1 mechanism for 2 purposes even within this one example that best illustrates inclusive fitness theory) and 2) ultimately, both mechanisms of kin recognition serve to increase total fitness?

I thought A and E are basically opposites of each other--does this mean that if there are two answers that are similar, but of diametrically opposed stances, it could mean that one of them is potentially the answer?