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

Something that this question shows is very important is Process of Elimination. I felt lucky to get this answer right the first time, and I couldn't really say why D was true until I looked back at it with J.Y. Pat ruined everything.

But look again at the answer choices. Without the sentence about Pat, we can get rid of A, B, and C, just by staying grounded in the rules. And even though E brings up Pat, it's still relatively easy to get rid of.

When you don't know, that's fine, you can still be right simply by knowing what's wrong, especially on must be true questions. Anything that doesn't have to be true is wrong.

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).

I felt like J.Y. made some assumptions in this tutorial, especially getting rid of answer choices C and D. I'm no expert and don't claim to be, but based off our lessons of always being anchored in the stimulus I think these videos could use some improvement.

For C, I agree with J.Y. that Tanner doesn't discuss debating skills. However, I believe he takes quite a leap in saying not only that Saldana supports this but agrees with this. C says: "Debating skills are of little use to politicians in doing their jobs once they are elected to office", and Saldana doesn't say anything about the use of debating skills while in office. Maybe she agrees because she thinks its not useful after the initial campaign. Maybe she disagrees because whoever is elected will have to debate for reelection. I really disagree with J.Y. that we can say anything about Saldana's view other than she doesn't mention it and it is therefore a consistent claim with her argument.

D is not so bad, but I still feel there are assumptions. D says "The candidates with the best debating skills are the ones who are most qualified for the political offices for which they are running". J.Y. says that Tanner doesn't speak about debating skills, which again I agree with. But he says that Saldana disagrees, which assumes that she thinks having good debating skills means you're less qualified, which she doesn't say. Saldana doesn't say that having good debating skills means you're less qualified, she simply says that good debating skills doesn't mean you are qualified. In this way she is consistent with the claim.

Once again, I'm no expert. These are just my personal thoughts. If you at 7sage or other 7sage customers agree, maybe their could be a change for the better. If you disagree, I can respect that and would like to know why, outside of what the video says. #help#feedback

Nice lesson.

I find especially for this answer it's important to ask 'why' when reading through the ideas presented in an argument, which makes it easier to see the second sentence as the conclusion instead of the first.

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.

Another possibly helpful example that I remember on correlation vs. causation is sales of ice cream and drownings, which have a high correlation. However, obviously there is no causation, as ice cream doesn't cause drownings. Instead, phenomenon C, or hot days, caused an increase in ice cream sales (A), and an increase in swimming, resulting in more drownings, or (B).

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.

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.

"Some cafes that serve decaf source coffee beans from Blue Mountain Roasters. All cafes that serve decaf also serve tea. Therefore, some cafes that serve tea source coffee beans from Blue Mountain Roasters." The first and third sentence from this paragraph need revision, maybe it was meant to say "are from Blue Mountain Roasters"? #feedback

I'm confused why the negation for 'some' changed in this lesson. In the previous lesson, it was said that the negation of 'some' is 'none'. In this lesson, the example above "Some unicorns poop rainbows" is negated to "Some unicorns don't poop rainbows". I don't understand the distinction here, #help

It may be helpful to note that when 'If' is used to indicate sufficiency, the word 'then' is usually used to indicate necessity. "If you are in New York, then you are in the U.S.".

The example that I think about when thinking about how sufficient-necessary relationships work is the following: If I'm in New York, that's sufficient to know I'm in the U.S., but being in the U.S. does not mean I'm in New York. Being in New York is sufficient to know I'm in the U.S., and being in the U.S. is necessary to be in New York.

Something I'm changing about my strategy for approaching questions is to avoid putting questions stems into a group, like weaken, strengthen, RRE, main conclusion, assumption, whatever.

If you read this question stem and skim for the words indicating most strongly supported, then you might think as I did the first time taking this question: support what the stim says. But that hurts your chances of getting the question right, because you could support either the stim's argument, or the conclusion.

As I was reading this question, I was thinking "This argument would be stronger if there was an answer choice that said 'the peer review between physics today and biology 20 years ago are almost identical'. That would support the argument.

But that's not what the question is asking for! It's asking for what would support the scientists' conclusion, which makes answer choice A so much easier to see as the correct answer.

What I learned: Don't merely glance at whether the question stem asks for strengthen, weaken, assumption, etc. Read each question stem as if it's completely unique.