I have a question on how the video comes to the contrapositive of the answer choice.

"there are many records of major meteor impacts that do not seem to have been followed by mass extinction"

in the stimulus

becomes

""...then all major meteor impacts would be followed by mass extinction"

I understand we need

P ---> -CCL

or

CCL---->-p

And that this is to be P3. But how is all the contrapositive of many? Many could potentially be All. Shouldn't the right answer here be not many aka none, no, etc?

Invisible man passage.

I;m sorry I read the explanation, it still makes no sense to me how A has anything to do with the lines referred to. To me C look like the best answer because it is giving tribute to the ancestors and it involves political concept and critics thought it needed politics. Answer choice A doesn't address this. It requires a huge leap, how are we suppose to guess positive effect on social conditions mean the specific social conditions (which I assume it means political action) addressed in the passage? And how is political action a social condition? that seems very odd. I am not seeing the connection between the lines cited and the answer choice here as in how they are supported.

http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy

I found this useful for games, is there some post or thing similar for reading comprehension?

hmmm. isn't D diagrammed backwards. ie. All students can participate in recess after the bell has rung.

Bell doesn't ring, they can't go to recess.

~ring -----> ~recess

Recess ----> Ring

All employees can participate after they have been with the company for 1 year.

Not 1 year service then can't participate

~1 year ----> ~participate

Participate -----> 1 year +

Video instead says 1 year + ----------> participate?

Gavin is 3 years instead of 1. And then they conclude that he must participate from a can premise. That is why it doesn't match. I think there is error in the video.

Main Point question, I agonize between B and E. B is wrong because they never said it was not the only factor? But isn't E wrong as well because the conclusion was about unlikely that a prediction will occur where as E said probably will not? Isn't E kind of too definitive?

Ie. you wrote test 61 4 months ago and forgot it or didn't score that well and didn't review it and got a 158 but re-write it now and get a 166?

I really struggle with these types, analyticals told me so and I knew it to be true, the art passages are the worse, they tend to be full of alot of fluff words that I don't know the meaning of, I look them up so it has improved somewhat, but I don't know where I could find more passages written like this. For instance, I initially struggled with science passages but then started reading physics articles and peer reviewed physics articles and watching physics videos on stuff like dark matter so now I am fairly ok with them. I was wondering what would be the equivalent for art/literature type passages. Think like the Cameron art passage or the dostoyevsky type literature passage. Where are these articles drawn from and where can I read more of them so I can become more familiar with these types of concepts.

I am having a little difficulty eliminating answer choice C here. I understand that the single guest is analogous to the standard antibiotic, which leaves me with a and c. I don't understand why it is not the pleasure part though? Ie. the stimulus says one meal that will please a single guest. So to me C looked "righter" because it matches the pleasure concept as well.

I am having a problem seeing how a/c C WEAKENS. To me it looks like it is strengthening the argument.

Maybe I am just misunderstanding how the argument is designed, I don't know, please help. The explanation video didn't help me.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-1-question-12/

Premise

~Nobility -----> ~ Tragedy

(~ = negative)

Conclusion

~Fate -------> ~ Tragedy

It is obvious we must link the concept of Nobility and Fate. Making D right.

My question isn't D backwards? We need an answer choice going from premise to conclusion

~nobility ------> ~ fate

Fate ------>Nobility

Instead D says

~Fate ------> ~Nobility.

Nobility -----> Fate.

Technically wouldn't this be unnecessary since it is a reversal? I know some people might say o just ignore this or look at the contrapositive, but I've seen a few questions where the contrapositive usage of it was considered wrong over the actual way. Ie. the way D had it was wrong when another answer choice said fate > nobility.

The video explanation was a bit murky here. I'm not so sure why the answer choice is C. I have a good theory on why people likely mistakenly pick C even though it is the right a/c. There are some issues I have with it.

1. its trying to say that if the number of science and engineering students in university programs has increased in the last 5 years then that is somehow proof or strengthening the idea of there being no shortage of scientist and engineers. This is a problematic shift, it requires us to assume they stay in that program, graduate it, AND work in that field. There is no evidence that these people have even graduated never mind ward off an IMMINENT and CATASTROPHIC shortage. Imminent means about to happen, how can people who entered university 3 years ago and are not even employed ward off and IMMINENT shortage? we don't even know when in the last 5 years this increase happened. We just know generally

2. It is also using a raw number to address a question about a total proportion. In otherwords, the correct answer choice here, C, is a percents and numbers FLAW! It would be like saying ok you have a shortage of 90% of workers. C is saying but you have a significant increase in the NUMBER of science grads, so what, you went from 10,000 to 50,000, that doesn't ward of the IMMINENT AND CATASTROPHIC shortage of 400,000 science grads needed. This matters because shortage means proportion it is a ratio not a raw number. It is the amount of jobs to job seeker ratio. You cannot solve this question with a total number.

3. I try to see how C could at least be right, but I have a real problem with it. I suspect most people don't recognize it as a ratio issue and just say yeah more students ----> more grads -----> -more job seekers ----->avert shortage and therefore Strengthen conclusion. There is a problem at literally everyone of these jumps but the worse one is you can have a significant increase of students, grads, job seekers, and still not avert an IMMINENT and catastrophic shortage. Maybe I am just not seeing where he is trying to strengthen correctly.

4. So which a/c would I have chosen? Probably D? Why, it is the only question who addresses the issue in the argument and thus has the POTENTIAL to strengthen. If certain science fields have an oversupply and others have a shortage. That indicates 2 thins. 1) For the oversupply field clearly there is no imminent and catastrophic shortage, supporting the conclusion. 2) For the shortage field there is also no imminent and catastrophic shortage, it is a shortage but its not described as imminent or catastrophic, so it indeed also supports the conclusion.

I know we are suppose to go back and do them, but for scoring purposes in the analytical tools, do we leave them as blanks or do we put our guess answer choice? Ie. my guess answer choice for questions is D. So for question 25, do I put in D, or should I leave it blank, so that in the odd chance it is right I don't get a false sense of knowing something I do not?

I actually understand C and how it is the answer, I am more confused around making sense of its meaning in a practical way, as it stands I need a way to understand how it was put it into practical understandable language (ie positive form) I watch the video and the answer choice was translated as : an ideal bureaucracy will always (never elminated) have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

I'm just not sure what rules he was using to get here. Like when I come across these type of statements in the future, I need some method for dealing with them. Because I would have likely eliminated all the nots in the statement and I know it is wrong. Why did never become always instead of some times, and why did he elminate both without and never?

Would the negation test for this be:

an ideal bureaucracy will never have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

or

an ideal bureaucracy will always/sometimes [not sure which one] (never elminated) have permanently without complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-18/

I am having trouble with these main point questions in general. It seems I always fall for the trap answer which is usually some kind of point just not the main one. In this one I picked C. I understand E matches that part of the passage after However, I just don't understand why it is the main point. The video explanation just kind of took it for granted that it was more clear that the first statement wasn't the conclusion. But it seemed to me that is what he was trying to convince me of and what the entire argument was structured around. The however part seemed more like it was supporting the first sentence.