I completely understand the logic of this argument only after understanding that cholestrol is a cause of heart disease, and not merely "associated with the development" with it. I do not like his explanation because I feel it has helped me greatly to take the stimulus literally. Even if the 2 first sentences are true that still does not mean that it is a cause (or a contribution) #feedback

interested— working 9-5 est

Break down how I got the wrong conclusion number 8? #help

What types of logical reasoning questions will this type of logic be on? it is something i need to definitely revisit #help

I flew through the unit questions and I have seemed to hit a massive brick wall. Were the lesson questions too easy or something? I was gaining confidence and now i am back to square one. #help

Thinking out loud, hopes this helps everybody. Just realized that with this question, with the prescriptive conclusion and premises, the assumption is justifying the point that they made, and D does that, while the other answers just add other facts. I am beginning to see why A is wrong although it had me confused. Definitely think this is a 5 star question compared to the other ones.

is there help to get me to remember that all premises don't need to be used? I know its a trap but I fall for it every time:( #help

How'd i get this one a minute fast and took forever on the other ones? It really seemed obvious to me but the last one did not seem to have a correct answer at all. What should I review???? #help

Got this right upon blind review because I still have to work on parsing out grammar, but I think you guys should reevaluate what constitutes a given level of difficulty. Sometimes I miss easy ones but sometime I think some are definitely under-rated. #feedback

Trying my part in this if anybody is stuck like me. There are 2 necessary assumptions about the bone: That it was engraved when the village was occupied, and it was engraved when mammoths were around. It is an and statement, and the contrapositive would be if the village wasn't occupied or the mammoths weren't around when the engraving was made. If either of those conditions fail then the argument is scuttled. The conclusion CBT but not via the bone, which is what matters in this question.

My problem, which used to hurt me in the Logic Games section, was that I thought that the conditions in the first sentence about the profits, consumers, and the cost of living were completely disconnected. Has anybody felt similar about this? The right answer looks correct now but it needs to be explained how everything is connected. #help

I'm writing this down for myself but I'm assuming the 5 star questions deal with multiple rules where you have to disregard some, leading you to the opposite of the conclusion in the stim.

As for me, I made the unwarranted connection that book→better health→doctor. It was only on review that I realized that health and the book were on different branches. Bad on me for not reading. I think that C could be explained simply as one that looks a bit like D that is a trap answer. It could be worded as "an effect could be caused by two or more seperate state of affairs.

Congrats! I am in a similar situation as you so I hope I can learn some stuff. Where was your plateau and how did you push through? I’m afraid I’m there now.

Thanks!

I guess I am confused on the point of the LSAT. What makes this a 5 star question? I chose B but that seemed to be a simple reading error. If I had caught this, odds are I would've picked A as i thought the other ones were irrelevant. Does what I'm diagramming on paper happen in my head in what should be 1m:34s? #help #feedback

#help 15

How is there no decline? There could still be a possibility of decline? Wouldn't there be no revolution?

Exercise 2 is great, but I feel like it would be better if there was a Lawgic displaying how the argument is invalid. I could recognize immediately that it wasn't invalid, but I feel that the point of Lawgic is to show how the argument is invalid, if that is possible. #help

I think how im understanding "only if" is if the sentence says "only if X, then y," I think of it as X might be the only cause, but there might be more ingredients, and therefore we cannot guarantee anything

I am trying to make the connection in my head, and I was thinking about the phrase "A is inside B" for A→B, or maybe "A is apart of B." Is this dangerous? #help