I am doing the flash cards for the group 3 logical indicators and keep coming up with the contrapositive first. Example: There is no punishment without law. The group 3 operator is without I picked “law” made it the sufficient and negated it. The other idea was punishment. So for me it looked like this: /L -> /P. and then my contrapositive is P -> L. I kept doing this on many of them. The flash card showed with P -> L first. I realize that they are just contrapositives of each other but I just started to worry that there may be something wrong with the way I was reading it that would cause me problems in real LR questions.

Just wanted to share this because it makes me laugh and think about how we can feel when we read LSAT question sometimes. I hope it puts a smile on your face too.

I wanted to get some more clarification on a misdirected thought that I had about the words 'if true' in the question stem of certain questions. I had previously thought that this phrase was placed like some of the other words on the LSAT to confuse. This comes from the idea that you are not supposed to bring in outside info to try and bridge the gaps between a right and wrong answer choice. However, I was driving and listening to the MSS webinar by Corey and he stated that the 'if true' is saying even though this is not information found in the stimulus if it were true it could lead to a right answer. So, my question: is it true that when I see the 'if true' that it is a hard fast rule that the LSAT is allowing this (outside) information to be relevant to the task of choosing the correct answer. If you want to listen to where I heard this go to the MSS webinar by Corey and go to minute 23:00.

I missed question 4. I actually couldn’t pick an answer because they all appeared to work as I moved my l–n block around for each answer choice. I remember learning that when you have to go backwards in the chain that means those items on the other leg of the chain have no relation. So as I looked at my chain the l–n block had no relation to H, so I am missing the inference that I was supposed to pick up that indicated that nothing could be lower than H or that H had the 9 spot on lock down.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-4-section-3-game-1/

Questions like these are tougher for me to find guidance when I am stuck since there are not videos or explanations for them. So can anyone please help me understand why C was the answer and not D.

I am in the Some and Most Relationships category of the curriculum and I am finding myself a little confused about negation vs the contrapositive. One of the quizzes gives this example: "All non-water breathing mammals have limbs". The task states to: 1. Translate all English statements into Lawgic. 2. Negate each statement in Lawgic. 3. Translate each statement back into English. So my translation looks like this: NWBM --> L. Now I believe that this is correct but the next step is where my confusion begins. I recognize that All is a group 1 logical indicator so the task for that involves finding the contrapositive which would be: /L --> /NWBM. This is not negation which would be in the english translation: Some NWBM do not have L. So I believe that my confusion is coming from not understanding when I am supposed to apply a negation rather than a contrapositive to the original statement in an LR question.