Put differently, Validity means the premise logically supports the conclusion. (The math makes sense.)

This blew my mind. Thank you for explaining sufficiency vs necessity.

In my legal reasoning class at GSU, we used the terminology deductive reasoning (formal logic) and inductive reasoning (informal logic).

I have a habit of simplifying long lists of characteristics for comparison. Does it matter if I successfully identify the winner of the comparison?

I mistakenly translated "many" as some instead of all. I noticed my error in blind review and got the correct answer.

#feedback

Some alphabets are not phonetic.

alphabets ←s→ /phonetic

/phonetic ←s→ alphabets

alphabets → phonetic

/phonetic → /alphabets (Is the contrapositive useful here?)

Would the negation of most be equivalent to the idea of few?

/(A ‑m→ B)

or

A ←s→ /B

Is this correct?

Would you negate most statements like all statements?

Does the negation use a similar principle to simplify embedded conditionals?

The interchange between most and many in this explanation is jarring. #feedback

I guess you're supposed to choose which framework feels the most intuitive.

The contrapositive of the embedded conditional could be used to make the conjunction. So A > /B > C = A> /C >B

A and /B > C

or

A and /C > B

I was following along and then bam! JY did witchcraft. His embedded conditional rule is so helpful. I'm mad. I haven't seen this before. Why don't they teach logic in high school?

The phrase "much less significant" is awkward. A better phrase would be "genetically similar."

I did this without removing every modifier. I chose a middle ground. I only added the modifiers that seemed pertinent. In my mind, everything after "that" was too much information to process, so I removed it.

E.G.

1: Ancient Remedial Herbs v. Modern Synthetic Antibiotics

2: Retain effectiveness against new, resistant strains of bacteria

3: Ancient Remedial Herbs

I totally missed "do" was a referential.

#Feedback diagrams would be helpful.

Are superlatives used frequently on the LSAT?

I do this naturally to grasp abstract topics. I go a step further by making an explicit connection to familiar concepts.

LSAC relies heavily on relationships between clauses. Specific phrases will illustrate a relationship (causal, conditional, analogous, disjunctive, etc). If you can identify the phrases and the subsequent relationship (or structure), you can navigate the LSAT. With unlimited time, you should be able to succeed, but there are time constraints. Remember, time is king.

Stim: Some people believe that every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, but that cannot be true since tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.

I love how the conclusion is referential. Therefore, if you misunderstand the referent, you cannot understand the conclusion.

Question two kicked me in the behind because I used conjunctions in my translations and mistranslated an indicator. Only a minute per question is rough.

The visual representation helps so much.

Until he explained how they were different. I assumed they were the same.