I read the stim as indicating that businesses that rely (the business requires computer technology) on computer technology. When I read AC D on the other hand, I read "invest" as within the frame of financial investments and made an assumption (?) that the businesses described in the AC were investing into computer technology, as in, not reliant on the actual tech but rather on the finances behind the computer technology reliant companies. I read through all of the ACs, hated all of them, but went with A. Is there any way to get around this difference in vocabulary? I feel like it kind of killed this question for me and I doubt I would get it correct in a different situation.

misread C as having two correlations instead of two phenomena that are correlated and completely discounted it immediately because there are not two correlational relationships in the stim, definitely gotta go slower

I answered A to this question. The way I read it was:

Society must grant privileges upon adulthood as long as they are mature enough to accept the responsibilities associated with them. Science says age of physical maturity is 17. Since this maturity process (physical, not psychological) has been completed, *we should give the privileges to these citizens.

*- major assumption that because physical maturity has been met, the maturity level necessary to accept correlating responsibilities is met.

I thought that that they were assuming that physical maturity indicated the maturity level necessary to accept the additional responsibilities, thus assuming what it is trying to prove. I don't think it is necessarily circular reasoning either, but I don't think that A is saying that. A just says that it is assuming what it attempts to prove, not that there is a circular means of reasoning, just that the conclusion is unsupported/an assumption.

What am I not getting here, this makes sense to me but I trust that I am wrong.

That assumption is not necessary. There are a ton of different assumptions that you could make that do not require the mayor to be a polarizing political figure. The reason that JY said this is because the stimulus seems analogous to former President Trump. His supporters are going to support him no matter what, so among the people that believe his ethics violations were legitimate are most likely his opponents.

That said, this is a 5-star difficulty question, you will have to make some assumptions to find the answer.

Half of the city believes that the Mayor committed an ethics violation. Of that population, "almost all people" had poor reviews of his performance. That is why he is able to have a 52% approval rating, because the only people who believe he has done something wrong are likely among the 48% who disapprove of his office.

The stimulus does not say anything about efficiency or productivity. You are making assumptions about those things, from the stimulus, you and I only know one thing, that the current habitat is not large enough. The only solution is a larger habitat. Maybe the current habitat is 100% efficient and a more productive piece of land would not be possible, or maybe not, but it doesn't matter. You are making assumptions based on your real life understanding of space usage. If this were an actual problem with the habitat of Florida Panthers then you would likely be correct, but it is not. In this case it is binary, larger or not larger.

"Their current habitat is not large enough to support any more of these animals, however."

These means, not implies, that they require a larger habitat, not that their current habitat is not suitable for any other reason. If they want to reach a self-sustaining amount (250+), then they must have a larger habitat than the habitat that they currently have.

If the stimulus stated, instead, "Their current habitat is not suitable to support any more of these animals. however." Then you would be correct, but it explicitly states that the problem with the current habitat is that it is not large enough.

You're incorrect here. The stimulus very clearly states that the current habitat is not large enough, which means (does not imply, means) that a larger habitat is required. You are using outside knowledge to justify your reasoning in other responses. I only care that the current habitat is not large enough, I do not care if the new habitat is in a desert or if there isn't food for the panthers in it. All that I care about is that it is larger. This stimulus does not mention any other requirements, adding anything onto the parameters set forth in the stimulus is incorrect.

This is the lawgic of this conditional:

Self-Sustaining → 250+ → larger than current habitat

The contrapositive is:

/larger than current habitat → /self-sustaining

Answer choice C:

Unless Florida panthers acquire a larger habitat, their population will not be self-sustaining

Lawgic:

/larger than current habitat → /self-sustaining

Process of Elimination

Reading the question first is helpful when considering the scope of the LSAT. Unlike drilling specific types of questions, LSAT questions could ask anything in whatever order the writers put them in. It is a good idea to read each question stem prior to reading the stimulus because then you can go into the stimulus with a goal in mind. In this case, it is predicting the conclusion. For a main conclusion question, it may be looking for indicator words or obvious conclusion.

The best strategy to become faster at something is to take it slow in the start and ensure you are fully comprehending the foundations of each concept. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

Being inside/outside the domain just means whether or not a rule is applicable to a given population. Reframe the conditional argument here to say instead,

"If you are a resident of the Beresford and your animal does not serve a legitimate medical purpose, then you are prohibited from keeping it."

This translates to:

R and /P → P

Here, we can move the R to the domain, making this rule applicable only to residents within the Beresford. This means that if I am not a resident of the Beresford, then it does not matter whether or not my pet has a legitimate medical purpose because the rule is not applicable.

Remember that with the last few lessons, these are tools to help us in the future, not the end all be all of logic. We should be looking at each logic problem with a set of tools seeking to find an answer, not looking to specifically use each tool.

It did help me out! Thank you for the response and the time you took to write it!

Yes! You are correct, it is all about the "only students", the teacher believes that only students that miss Monday's class are in danger of failing. This means that in order to be in danger of failing, you must have missed Monday's class. This question is easy to get tripped up because our brains tell us that missing Monday's class is not the only reason someone may be in danger of failing, but remember, this is all about the logic, not the specific words. I can miss a Monday class but turn in extra credit work, I can make up the class at a later time, etc.

The only students piece here is doing all of the work for this conditional, if you are in danger of failing, you must have missed class Monday. If you missed class on Monday, you may or may not be in danger of failing, but if you didn't you surely are not in danger of failing.

Could question 10 also be interpreted as

Domain: Valid moral judgement

Sufficient: about a particular action

Necessary: Formed on basis of its consequence

PA → Consequence

/Consequence→/PA

(If it is not formed on the basis of its consequence, then it cannot be about a particular action)

This means that if a valid moral judgement is about a particular action, then it must be formed on the basis of its consequences. If I make a valid moral judgement about a concept, there are no direct consequences to be formed on the basis of. But if I make a valid moral judgement about an action, then I must make those judgements on the basis of the consequences.

I am having a difficult time with #6. I cannot understand why the eligibility is the necessary condition outside of grammar rules/indicators. If a pet adoption center is eligible for the grant, then I know that they must have an interactive website and be a non-profit. Just as I know that if a pet adoption center has an interactive website and is a non-profit, then they are eligible. Looking back at previous lessons, I should not be able to know for a fact the status of the sufficient conditions from knowing the status of the necessary conditions, but in this case I do. I am pretty confused here.

#help

Your problem here stems from the over/under inclusivity of conditional indicators. If you rely too heavily on indicators, you will miss basic logical thinking. In this case, "only" is over inclusive. If you have ever shredded a document or throw away a piece of writing, then you know that being written down is not sufficient for surviving.

This highlights the under inclusivity of condition indicators. I think it is fair to see "requires" as an indicator, but at the same time it is not an end all be all.

Mostly yes, this is because the positive sufficient condition is always enough to know the status of the necessary condition. Using "All cats are mammals", if one is a cat (sufficient) then I know, for a fact, that one must also be a mammal.

Cat → Mammal

On the other hand, the positive necessary does not always indicate the sufficient. If one is a mammal, then I do not have enough information to know if one is a cat. If I know the sufficient condition is met, then I know that the necessary condition must be met.

Contrarily, the negative necessary condition is enough to know if a sufficient condition can be met. Using the "All cats are mammals" again, if one is not a mammal (necessary), then I can validly infer that one is not a cat.

/M → /C

I think that it was saying that the "and" form of or is rare on the LSAT while the exclusive form of or is less common than the inclusive, but still far more common than the "and" form.

In the last section, it says to assume that every "or" you run into is inclusive, and that if it is not, the context will clearly indicate the other forms.

Yes! If it were necessary → sufficient, the argument would be flawed. This is because a necessary condition being met does not tell us whether or not a sufficient condition will be met. Looking back at the "every cat is a mammal" conditional argument. Cat being sufficient, and mammal being necessary. If I told you my pet, Tony, was a mammal, it would be flawed of you to say that Tony was cat. But if I tell you that my pet Tony is a cat, you can rightfully (through use of the conditional argument) say that Tony is a mammal by virtue of being a cat.

This section tripped me up too.

The clue for the 2 section is the adjective of the main subject in one of the clauses. In this case "best" is the adjective of the main subject, "chef". The idea here is that there are two implied groups of chefs, the best and the "not best." If a chef is not the one of the best, they will not, under any circumstances, cook at a Michelin-starred restaurant. But if a chef is the best, we have no idea if they will cook in a Michelin-starred restaurant. I think my mothers cooking is the best, but she is far from cooking in a Michelin restaurant. But if I go to a Michelin restaurant, I know that only the best chefs will be cooking there.

For future problems, try to completely separate out each word in the clause like this:

"Only+ the best chefs cook in Michelin-starred restaurants."

adjective/modifier

Necessary

Sufficient

indicator = +x+

Hey Venus!

I definitely understand your question and it is valid, these concepts are tough to grasp. Essentially, the reason why sufficient/subsets always come on the left of lawgic relative to necessary/superset conditions is because you can understand the necessary conditions based on the sufficient conditions.

Take the jedi problem for example, if I know that one is a jedi then I know that that is sufficient enough to fly. However, if I know that one can fly, I do not know if one is a jedi.

F→J does not work because of this. More specifically about the → symbol, this symbol indicates the relationship of conditions. What helps me is to think of it almost like an "if then" statement. So, J→F translates to "If Jedi, then Fly." I'm pretty sure this should work in most cases, but I am not 100%.

"I don't know, the pound of steel looks heavier than the pound of feathers."

"Both sides of the scale are even though"

"Even though the project deadline is next month, we should start working on it immediately to ensure we have ample time for revisions"

That's the best I can do lol

I disagree, I cannot find any support for this claim in the passage. The beginning of the argument only discusses the importance of medicine and healthcare, not of the ability of the group to rebuild and fortify the hospital. Remember, any conclusions, whether sub or main, require support. In this case, there is none.

I definitely agree with you that the wording is fluffy though.

Hi!

The entire "2" section can be a little confusing. For this specific line of arguments, focus primarily on what exactly the conclusion says. In 2.2, the main conclusion is that Jane must have heard the fire alarm at the office. It does not include any claim about where she was or how she heard it, only that she heard it at all. On the other hand, the sub-conclusion is all about timing and location. The sub-conclusion can still be true if Jane is completely deaf, it is only about if she was nearby the loudspeaker when the fire alarm went off. Therefore, the fact that she had to have walked directly by the loudspeaker, supports the sub-conclusion that she must have been near it when the alarm rang.

Try to separate each claim and determine which claims require support and if that support exists in the context of the question. For example, if there was a claim that the loudspeaker operated at a specified decibel level that was completely incomprehensible to the human ear, it would totally invalidate one of the major premises and destroy the argument. However, because we do not see anything supporting or hindering the major premise (no way one could be anywhere near that loud noise), we can determine that it is not a conclusion of any type.