where are the videos for these? :/

If this helps from what I gathered on chatgbt:

• All A are B = A → B

• Every A is B = A → B

• Any A is B = A → B

They ALL mean the same thing: 👉 if A, then B

Where your confusion is coming from

You’re probably thinking:

👉 “All” sounds like it’s talking about EVERYTHING

But it’s not.

It’s only talking about: 👉 the group A (birds)

It’s NOT saying anything about: 👉 things that are NOT A (non-birds)

@VerdaSlay I haven't unfortunately yet

Am really struggling with these concepts, please send help ://///

So, 0/5, and just trying to wrap my mind around chaining them. So, as I’m trying to understand this more, should I refer to the wording for sufficient and necessary first? And the different groups explained at the top—is that always the order we need to follow when reading these statements?

Like, do all of the sentences need to be broken down and put in order based on the grouping standards? Like, is it always either Group 1, 2, 3, or 4? Or how should I best understand breaking this down from Steps 1–4 and then Group 1–4?

Basically, I’m just lost on where to start with understanding this, because the wording is getting lost in translation for me. Is there a guide someone typically uses when reading these, or a system you’d recommend I follow?

For #2, I understand the idea, but why is it flipped so the second part comes first: /not want to learn to ski → over 40, and then want to learn to ski → /over 40? In the other examples, the answer is pulled from the 1st part of the sentence rather than the second part.

I feel like this is still confusing to understand, any suggestions as there were a lot of words that can be confusing to understand? For every conditional argument, does there need to be a "/" (Not) aka a contrapositive section for all these arguments going forward?

From my understanding with the help of chat and broke it down for me easily!

• Think of it like a pattern:

  • If A → B

  • X is A

  • → therefore X is B ✅

  • This is valid because it follows the rule correctly.

• 🧩 Example (simple)

  • If it rains → ground is wet

  • It is raining

  • → ground is wet ✅

  • This makes sense AND is logically valid.

• 🚫 Invalid example

  • If A → B

  • X is C

  • → therefore X is A ❌

  • Why is this wrong?

  • Because:

    • 👉 we don’t know how C relates to A

    • There’s no connection.

• 🔁 When it becomes valid

  • If A → B

  • If C → A

  • X is C

  • → therefore X is A ✅

  • Now it works because:

    • C leads to A

    • X is C

    • so X must be A

What is the best way to break it down like sufficient (is not required) and necessary (is required)?

Would this be a good way to think about it without too many moving parts? For instance, using an LSAT prep example:

7Sage (A) is a subset of LSAT course prep (B), which is the superset. This means that 7Sage (A) is sufficient to imply you are taking an LSAT prep course (B).

However, it is not necessary to take 7Sage (A) to be in LSAT prep (B), because LSAT prep can also include other methods, such as a college class or a private tutor.

Being in LSAT prep (B) is necessary in order to be using 7Sage (A), because every instance of 7Sage falls within LSAT prep.

In my module, I completed the grammar section before, but when referring to these questions now, it's hard to break it up with all this new info. Any suggestions? Kinda feels like I just forgot all the grammar when I literally just studied it :/

Is there anyway, we can break this down a bit simpler? I chose "D" thinking that outside people usually will notice the "mistakes" more before we realize it ourselves. Ex. person walking in with a funny shirt, we may not realize it's a funny shirt to ourselves but to others since it's a funny shirt (highlighted to be called out having a funny shirt), is where I find it confusing.

4/5!! question 2 did get me, what's the best way to think about it? I watched the video, but skill kinda confused

I feel like it's still hard to wrap around the idea of breaking this down and not getting confused with the wording. Any tips for trying to simplify this more?

@Bayside there with you! haha

@DavidGe From my understanding, I think it’s just specifying which attempts — ‘the attempts.’ The word ‘attempts’ on its own can be interpreted more like an action, whereas ‘the attempts’ refers to something specific being discussed, not an action being performed.” Hope this helps!

3/5 but definitely feeling better with my development skills!

@ryokace Same!!!

Any recommendations for you guys breaking down the passage? Having 0/2 now and am getting confused :/

Does anybody have a public Quizlet with similar questions below to help study with? The questions below are super helpful! :)

5/5 let's go!!

@JamesHague Just to make sure this is correct in your example?

Premise 1: Because they're upgradeable

Premise 2: I can play online with my friends that have PC's

Conclusion: I still want to get a gaming PC

Context: My mom says that I can only have one gaming console

Concession: Even though I already have a Playstation 5

@RyanKelly Could you help break down the example? Premise, conclusion, context, and concession - just to make sure I'm following correctly. Thanks!

@Ryo I take notes on the main points - vocab, etc., but I also include the examples as we continue going into the others lessons (expanding more upon them to follow along!) Hope this helps!

@MarissaTrott thank you, it does!

So, how would this assumption (strong argument or weak argument) apply to an LSAT question? Will the question ask to choose which statement is the best associated with being false?