Using math helped me with this concept:

55% of almonds are consumed domestically

55% of almonds require intense irrigation

55+55 = 110.

Some (at least 10%) of almonds consumed domestically require intense irrigation

Found a typo under the "Let's Review"

When you attempt to negate a claim about a relationship, in this instance, a conditional relationship, you are trying deny that relationship. Same error is present in the same section of the previous lesson on "all" relationships.

#feedback

#5 reminded me of this gem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ yes, i'm a non-traditional applicant

On question 4, are the following valid?

mixed > cast & increase

/increase or /cast > /mixed

#feedback

"If we're being Lawgic nerds, technically it doesn't matter whether we follow the "no" rule (Group 4) or the "unless" rule (Group 3). (See if you can understand why this is when you have some more time.)"

Is it always the case that if any combination of indicator terms from both group 3 and 4 are used in a sentence with two ideas, one can choose to follow either translation rule?

#feedback

Are any of following also necessary condition indicators?

• Ensures

• Implies

• Leads to

• Will

• Requires

• Necessitates

• Depends on

• Relies on

Another LSAT learning platform has these terms on their list.

#feedback

Is "each" also a sufficient indicator?

Another LSAT learning service includes it in their list.

#feedback

Is "requires" a conditional indicator?

#feedback

my ex said they got Chlamydiae from a tractor seat. which must mean that Chlamydiae host cells can grow on tractor seats. curious!

herbs v antibiotics

retaining effectiveness v bacteria

herbs

Does question 3 contain two premises?

#feedback

Re question 3:

I've read elsewhere that in formal logic, when tranlating a necessary condition like (X&Y) to the contrapositive it becomes /(X or Y).

if ^C → B&U less

/(B or U) less → /(^C)

By the logic of this question, are the following valid?

If people are not buying less, costs have not increased.

If people are not using less, costs have not increased.

Or can it only be true that both must be present to conclude that costs have not increased?

Thanks for any help!

#feedback