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.

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).

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.

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.

Here's what helped me. When looking at this question, hopefully you can identify context/premises and then the conclusion. The conclusion is the last sentence, and starts with 'Thus'. Context/premises precede the last sentence.

In my mind's framework, what works for me to translate all of this from sentences into a sufficient/necessary relationship is to think "If (premises) then (conclusion)". For this argument that would look like "If (choosing f/a, acceptance, enjoyable life) then (freedom for all)". This matches up with C, which says "If (freedom, enjoyable life) then (freedom for all)".

Hopefully that helps, it's what makes sense to me.

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.

This is something I was wondering to.

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.

We can make this assumption if we know there's been an increase to 250+ panthers because it's necessary for that to occur. Based on how the answer makes its conditional logic, we know

Self-Sustaining --> 250+ --> Larger Habitat, or

/Larger Habitat --> /250+ --> /Self-Sustaining.

Hopefully this helps.

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.