Thank you, that actually really helped me.

I chose E too.

The reason it is wrong is because there is no specific claim by Marcusians that "advertising holds power over those few who cannot differentiate between real/false needs". That's a jumble from what we read.

The Marcusians hold that no one can distinguish between real/false needs (according to the author). Marcusians would not rationally posit that everyone irrationally believes ads but then argue that ads only affect those few people that believe them. And indeed, there is no line in the passage indicating they make this claim.

Also, in order to see that A is right, just re-read the last two sentences of the passage. Once I did that, I saw much more clearly that it's right.

Yes, I often do. I see your comment is from 2 years ago, so hopefully you're done with the LSAT, and congrats!

I see other explanations, but here's some concise explanations:

A: I see other comments saying that if the accidents are equal, then the major airline is still safer, but we would have to assume that major airlines fly more than low-fare airlines (not a horrible assumption, but on the other hand why wouldn't low-fare airlines get a lot of business?) The real reason I think this is wrong is because it ignores the argument. The argument says "Low fare airlines have almost no record, while major airlines have records, so the major airline is safer". Constantly remind yourself as you read: "Premise to conclusion". A doesn't describe the flaw in the premise to conclusion.

B: The stim says that the major airlines have a long/reliable record, so at least one is NOT too brief a period.

C: JY explains pretty well I think, but just C.

D: This says the safest have the best records, while the stim says the best records are the safest. Additionally, the stim doesn't say the superlative "safest", it just says "safer than low-fare" so that's another problem.

E: This is descriptively accurate, but not a flaw. The argument totally allows that major airlines could still have an accident; "safer than..." doesn't mean perfect.

I understand where you're coming from. I hate to say this because you see it all the time, but we would have to make assumptions that stopping overfishing is bad for the fishing industry.

To back up my point, consider this: overfishing itself probably is bad for the fishing industry. If we kill all the fish today, there won't be enough for tomorrow.

The stim: Stallworth says she supports the proposal. Henning says he supports the proposal. If Henning supported the proposal, then it would have passed. It didn't pass. So Henning must not have supported the proposal.

The flaw: While its true conditionally that the proposal not passing would negate Henning supporting, from a practical standpoint we don't know. From the stim, we have "S" supported and "H" supported, and the author fallaciously decides that "H" didn't support after the proposal didn't pass. What if "S" didn't actually support it? How is "S" claim believed while "H" is not?

AC A: TV News says Aylmer Street. If Aylmer Street, then Morgan could not have seen. So the newspaper report that Morgan saw it is wrong.

While AC A is slightly different in structure, the flaw is the same: There are 2 things (TV News saying Aylmer Street, Newspaper saying that Morgan saw it) that are contradictory (If Aylmer, Morgan not see, if Aylmer possible he could've seen), and then the author arbitrarily picks one (saying that the newspaper is wrong).

Hi there,

I was originally really confused by this question as well, let's see if what I found helps you at all!

Answer Choice (A): "Under the conditions in which the current system operates, the overall volume of health-care costs could be shrunk, if at all, only by a comprehensive approach."

I had the same reasoning as you, that there should be a new system put into place. But that's actually what the AC is saying. "Under the conditions in which the current system operates": Think of this like the environment of healthcare. The conditions are things like how many patients there are, what kind of funding is available, the number of qualified employees that a hospital has, the overall situation that healthcare is in.

So the AC says under those conditions "in which the current system operates" (Note that it's not even saying anything about the piecemeal system itself, it's just talking about the conditions of its situation) the only way to shrink costs, if at all, is by a comprehensive approach. The key here is recognizing that the comprehensive approach is the opposite of the piecemeal approach. That's a difficult connection to make, but once you recognize it, the following is an easier-to-understand translation of what (A) is saying:

"Under the current situation, costs can be reduced, if at all, only by a comprehensive (not piecemeal) system."

Lastly, I personally ruled out this AC the first time through because it had the word "only" in it, which is pretty powerful/difficult to prove. But remember this is Most Strongly Supported, so it is not held to the same level of validity as Inference. And especially compared to the other ACs, this AC is the most strongly supported.

Hope that helps!

Having to search through a 52 minute video for an explanation that should take at most 10 minutes seems excessive. More than half the video isn't even about the actual question. These videos lack J.Y.'s clarity and conciseness.

#feedback

Can you please do a video on #9? It would be greatly appreciated.

#feedback

I understand that you are showing the process of reasoning through the questions, but it doesn't actually clarify the process for me and it makes the videos way longer. #feedback

Read "The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning" by Ellen Cassidy. I was leveling out and this book literally gave me hope. Ups the LR score and RC score.

Grind on LG, that's all about drilling. Or, if you find LR and RC to improve enough, wait till after the June '24 LSATs when LG is no longer a part of the test.

Hi Penske! Let me explain, hopefully as simply as possible.

From the conditional statement, we know "If cited late -> 5+ minutes after bell". So if A->B. It's that simple, and Lawgic must stick rigidly to this.

I understand where you're coming from, but consider this: based off the conditional statements, does being 5+ minutes late guarantee a citation? The answer is no.

From a practical standpoint, it might be easier to explain this by giving the following example: Jim was 10 minutes late to class, but he told his professor it was because he was in a traffic accident, so his professor is okay with him being late. So here Jim is 5+ minutes late. Does that guarantee a citation? No.

Look at it the other way. Jim got a citation for being late. Is there any situation where he was less than 5 minutes late? Could he have been 3 minutes late and got a citation? No. If he got the citation, he was 5+ minutes late, no matter the reason.

Don't get discouraged by this early on. It takes a lot of time.

In the example you provided, the sufficient condition is actually represented by "he", or could be described as "if you are him, then you are not invited to the wedding". So in Lawgic H -> /IW.

More broadly, the key difference in what you are saying is "only" vs. "the only". Only does indeed indicate necessity (E.g. He is the only one not invited to the wedding, or in Lawgic H -> /IW).

"The only" however, indicates sufficiency: (E.g. The only penguin that wasn't eaten is Bert, or in Lawgic /Eaten -> Bert).

SUMMARY: The difference is the word "the". This seems overly technical, but once you become fluent in Lawgic and indicators, reading sentences naturally will allow this to click more than my small example here.

Relative vs. Absolute comparatives are essential to understand because these are sentences that it is so easy to make assumptions on. For example, from the sentence “Sharks are scarier than penguins”, we cannot infer that sharks meet a certain level of scariness, say for the example that there is a scale from 1-100 of scariness. Just because sharks are scarier than penguins, we don’t know that sharks are a 50 on the scale, or that penguins are a 5. That’s entirely possible, but we can’t be absolute in thinking that. All we know is that sharks are higher, so it could be possible that sharks are 100, and penguins are suddenly super scary and are a 99. Possible, because all we know is that sharks are higher.

The phrase "not objective" here means subjective.

JY isn't meaning that they are not objective at all, or that they are entirely subjective, rather that all we know is that people are more subjective about topics of which they possess extensive knowledge than topics of which they do not.

The point is that we are comparing the two relata on their comparative subjectivity, not the standard of their overall subjectivity.

No, because we know MJ is the best, we know everyone else (Bob) is not as good.

Context is simply an introduction or showing other people's position, such as is mentioned above.

A contextual argument is when the context gives us more than a simple position from other people; it also gives us their argument.

To be clear, they are both context.

Don't get discouraged! This takes time, and this is one of the toughest questions you'll see.

I would suggest staying away from quick run throughs and really taking time on going through the lessons. You need to thoroughly understand the concepts.

You got this!

I was stuck between B and E and chose E originally because I also thought they were identical. The key is that E is not flawed. The reasoning is legitimate. If banks make more money this way, then they should do that. B is right because it is flawed. The musician practicing one instrument over the other doesn't mean she'll get more deals to play.

the stim is the same as for the previous question

you and me both miss swift

I respect what you're saying but disagree. Once we get into taking Preptests regularly, we'll have plenty of opportunity to have to switch modes of thinking on the fly. This gives us a chance to really practice what goes into each question, because really what we are going for here is to learn and get better. Yes it's easier to select the right answer, but that really doesn't matter. It's why we select that right answer, and to make sure we do so in the future. #feedback

Yes, I got this wrong the first time through. But here's how to find the answer quickly through POE (I love the videos, but I feel like this is quicker and clicks with me FOR THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION).

A: presumes, without warrant, that one is likely to feel uncomfortable approaching a person only if that person is a stranger.

POE: In sufficient/necessary, this says Uncomfortable --> Stranger. Contraposed that is /Stranger --> /Uncomfortable. The argument doesn't talk at all about if you are not a stranger. Not right.

B: infers that a characteristic is present in a situation from the fact that that characteristic is present in most similar situations.

POE: The vid actually covers this pretty well. All the terms and conditions of the argument are general, it doesn't talk at all about a specific situation. Not right.

C: overlooks the possibility that one is less likely to feel comfortable approaching someone who is one's approximate age if that person is a stranger than if that person is not a stranger.

POE: The Sufficient Triggers of this AC are If Stranger and If /Stranger. Similar to A, this is not right because the argument doesn't tell us about If /Stranger.

D: presumes, without warrant, that one never approaches a stranger unless one feels comfortable doing so.

POE: "never approaches" makes this easy to get rid of. This deals in absolutes, the argument deals in likelihood. Not right.

Even after this, E may seem like gibberish, but this is the quick way of getting rid of the wrong ones. Especially in tougher questions, you don't have to know what the right answer is, just that four are wrong. Or if you know the right answer for what it is, good for you.

Hope this helps. I usually don't comment but I felt like this could be explained a lot easier. Yes, watch the videos, they teach the method of reasoning. But this is an actual way to find the answer quick when you're on the clock.

For answer choice B), couldn't the assumption be that the lead paint in those homes is the cause of all the childhood lead poisoning? #help

Typo in the reading "Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian society are often wrongly criticized on the grounds that total inequality would necessarily force everyone into a common mold." It's supposed to be total equality. #feedback

The way I framed this principle before looking at the answer choices reflects a sort of sufficient/necessary relationship which the children mixed up.

The children performed a verb (walking up and down stairs) while being told a noun (stairs). Verb-->Noun.

The children said a Noun (stairs) when they saw a verb (walking up a down ladder). Noun-->Verb.

Mixing up sufficient/necessary starts at a young age apparently.