@HelainaLaCoste A MSS will ask you to choose which answer is supported by the stimulus.

A PSA will ask you to pick a rule that will justify whatever scenario is happening or which scenario would exemplify better the principle (rule) given.

A SA will ask you for an assumption or inference that will help the conclusion to be true.

@JohnThorn The stimulus says: Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendels claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendels' farm.

Just based on the conditional we can say: Expected damage then Pay.

The B says: One should pay for damage that one's action leads other people to cause only if, prior to the action, one expected that the action would lead other people to cause that damage.

This translates, because of the only if, into: Pay then Expected Damage.

If you already know that the main relation is E then P, whenever an answer changes that (P then E) it will be wrong.

With this types of questions I find it very helpful to write down a list of the things the rule mentions for it to be applied. In this case the list for receiving coverage is:

1. Reasonable Person Read - X

2. Expectations of the policyholder exist - O

3. Says it will cover that expectation - X

Celia's case is as follows in the stimulus:

1. Reasonable Person Read - ?

2. Expectations of the policyholder exist - ?

3. Says it will cover that expectation - X

Because I am missing the first two, I need an answer that gives them which is B.

A: Cool, Celia is a reasonable person...but do we know if she read the document or not? Nope, we don't know so therefore A is not correct

C: Great, we have the 1 here but I am missing number 2

D: It doesn't give us 1 because we don't know if Celia is a reasonable person here, and we also don't know if she had expectations or not

E: Amazing, it gives us 1...but not number 2 so can't use it.

I think understanding why the correct answer is the correct answer would've been easier if I had tackled this question as a sufficient assumption.

@TheSovereign And how does that help your argument or point you're trying to prove?

@Mari_on_nette So, I got it wrong but after studying it here is what I unbderstood: In the stimulus they mentioned two things mild winter caused

1. Birds don't go to feeders

2. Birds didn't migrate

The text also explains how birds not migrating affected the population of birds but it never explained how the feeders affected the population so whenever you see that they're giving you two observations to reach a conclusion, the answer is usually how one of them contributed to the result.

@mrunordinary You can know which ones are wrong. The circle that you see there (picture 1) is either because you flagged it, you got it wrong or you took more time than required to answer it. If you want to know exactly why then you can hover on the circle with an i in the middle after the "recommended for BR" and it will let you know (Picture 2).

Picture 1

Picture 2

I think it's easier to understand why the other choices are incorrect if you make the logic chain. The main chain says: LN -m- CG and DFG

A: It just doesn't make sense, because we know that large nurseries have the guarantee but we have no idea about small or medium ones.

B: /DFG → /C. We know by now that "most" chains are not reversible and even if it was, this doesn't follow the original chain whatsoever

C: /C → /LN. Again, "most" chains are not reversible.

D: Sells to C → /LN. The original chain says the exact opposite and "most" chains are not reversible

By POE we can tell it's E.

@AaliyahTaylor It's okay! You must work on accuracy first and then speed. It's like Mario Kart, you start with the lower speed and start increasing it as you improve your skills

@LindaLopez Yes, I started March 13 if I'm not wrong

Maybe this will help to understand it more. Let's work with this rule:

If you are a member, then either you pay dues or you are expelled

So, first we put the logic chain as it is and remember, in the "or" one has to be negative (it's easier for me to always put the sufficient negative): M → (/P → E)

Then, we grab the sufficient clause of the second relationship and put it in the sufficient side of the whole chain (if it is negative, it passes as negative not as positive): M and /P → E

@Kevin_Lin Wow, thanks for the answer.

#5 is terribly wrong. If I did that chain in a sufficient assumption or flaw without the text explicitly stating the relationship, the test would punish me tremendously as one would pick probably a wrong answer.

@TobiStein That is exactly what I was thinking. In my opinion connecting them just for pure logic chain is not correct, it's forcing a relation that the text didn't establish whatsoever.

What happens when both clauses are negative (or we want to put in the sufficient part the negative clause)? For example

"Blackouts won't occur unless the heat wave doesn't abates."

Easy: it works like math. Negative + Negative = Positive, Positive + Negative = Negative.

Blackouts occur - Heat wave doesn't abate

Heat wave abates - Blackouts won't occur

If anyone else is having issues with this distinction, think of this. Sufficient: It is something that assures me Y is going to happen. Necessary: It is something that is required for X to happen. So, think about getting a good score in the LSAT, is it the only thing I need (sufficient) to get in the T4 law schools? No, but it is required (necessary).

Something that has helped me a lot is always asking myself "why should I believe that?" and if all the sentences answer it, then I know I found the conclusion. Also, search for trigger words such as "therefore", etc...

Hey! I am Juanita and I'm from Colombia. I will be taking (for now) the LSAT in June. I graduated from UNAL. a public national university in my country and I came here to the US last year for a better future. I currently live in San Antonio and would love to make friends and study partners!