That's what I thought too because "because" is a group 1 indicator isn't it?

Went through v2 course only to get this wrong. I want my money back JY

interesting

also not an adequate explanation, ngl

I want my money back

I don't think so. I had picked this the first time years back and I think what D is trying to do is to get you to conflate being "chemically similar" with being "just as poorly understood if not more poorly understood than some other drugs being tested"

I feel like understanding the difference between "always" and "sometimes" will be significant, especially when it comes to necessary assumption questions. To say that "physicians are always uncomfortable" would not be required, but to say that "sometimes uncomfortable" would be. Then again, would this be the kind of necessary assumption the LSAT would write? I feel like it's required for a premise and not necessarily the support in the argument.

I feel like this one could be simpler than the previous example because in this example there is no premise that supports the claim that the author seeks to discredit.

I also feel like it could be relevant in argument part questions. And not just to describe that it’s a concession, but also how that concession relates to other parts of the stimulus which I’ve personally find is much harder than it sounds

Are you saying it has "No one could have been anywhere in the vicinity of such an exciting moment and fail to notice it." as a subconclusion?

I haven't critically observed enough JY explanations to confirm this beyond a doubt, but I have a suspicion that as he reads the question stem and finishes, his cursor always briefly goes over the correct answer choice before he examines the stimulus.

I kinda don't think anyone's really pointed out an argument against why E doesn't "make any assuptions." In fact, one explanation here that one person revered as helping them understand AC E acknowledges that you have to make that popular "assumption." And they did that through math and stuff. Saying that "individuals aren't the only ones buying cars" doesn't seem like it can hold without making that popular assumption. Can anyone else explain how the fact that individuals contribute a smaller proportion to the average price not assume that they pay less for a car than the non-individual?

Does anyone have another LR question that isn't necessarily a weaken question but follows this same pattern of logical structure? I wanna see what it looks like in other contexts.

What is up with this whack structure bro

I always did wonder what the bar exam was exactly testing.

Is this to say that the claim isn't compatible with the falsity of the conclusion and doesn't have to be because it is compatible with the truth of said conclusion anyway?

I figured it out. Review group four conditional. God I feel stupid lol.

Does "that" indicate a "necessary" part of a conditional statement?