Hi! I am interested in study buddy!

HI! I am interested too. Hope we can study together as a good study buddy. I am okay with discord or zoom. Please let me know which method you are thinking of to study.

I am interested in too!

Hi, I am interested!

I have a question on (D). I got wrong D, since I thought D said in other cases, a certain brand (maybe expensive - I should not regard this naturally though) has a good effect to retard engine wear so making an extraordinary long time engine usage.

Now I got more sense that D is wrong, but the points mentioned in the lecture were a bit arbitrary to me. So, if D changed like "The engines of some ALL individual cars that have had their oil changed every 3000 6000 miles, using only a certain expensive brand of oil, have lasted an extraordinarily long time.", then this can be an answer?

Any comment would be very appreciated! Thank you.

I learned from this question that when the stimulus is (probabilistic) causal, then we can weaken (or indicate the flaw) the argument by asking "if you DON'T have that cause, do you have the same result?". So for the flaw stem, the AC saying the author ignores the possibility that the absence of the cause (age) makes the same result (comfortable) or not sounds a great answer.

Hi! What do you mean LOR?

I agree. I got this question wrong first, but I realized that in typical 'NA' LSAT questions, negation should come before knowledge boundaries.. So here, conclusion is 'We can save money by T generators' and Negated C kicks this conclusion like 'No. You cannot save money by T generators in the end'.

I am not sure my approach is okay, but here is my approach to D.

So, for NA problems, negate test is important. If we negate the option D, then "The bus drivers are affected differently to the different extent by the presence of the supervisor." Now, we have to check if this negated version can break the conclusion.

The conclusion is "Best driver with supervisor → Best driver without supervisor", and I translate this conclusion more simply (too much though, I think) "The presence of supervisor has NO impact on ranking".

The negated D can be simply translated like "The presence of the supervisor can have SOME impact on ranking somehow". Therefore, I finalize that okay, negated D breaks the conclusion insisting 'NO impact!'.

The negated C is simply translated like "There are some bust drivers that the presence of a supervisor makes their performance slightly better" (Since Most ↔︎ Some and worse ↔︎ better). But, this cannot 'break' the conclusion "No impact of supervisor".

In summary, for NA questions, it would be helpful to find the AC that can more fundamentally break the conclusion when being negated.

Yes, I got the wrong answer with the same logic with littlepumpkinpie and figured out with the same logic with mh212529. I actually got the wrong answer at PT133S1Q22, where the chosen wrong answer was (A) An action that is intended to harm another person is wrong only if the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong.

PT133S1Q22 lawgic: wrong → only if understand r/w

PT132S2Q23 lawgic: acceptable → only if (1) purpose and (2) shown not harm

The only difference between these two questions in stimulus from my view is that the conclusion of the former is 'wrong', while that of the latter is 'not acceptable'.

Since the latter one's NC (2) is failed, so SC, acceptable is failed, which aligns with the reasoning of the stimulus. If (C) is shown like /acceptable → only if (1) purpose and (2) shown not harm, it would be totally wrong.

My conclusion here is the modified version of littlepumpkinpie's insight.

1) the correct AC must “end in the right place” (i.e., is the same conclusion/has the same meaning as the conclusion in the stimulus)

2) that the exact +- sign(or form) of conclusion must not be the sufficient condition.

#feedback "No single species of dinosaur lived throughout the entire Mesozoic era." Does it mean (A) is not true? Why (E) is the only one which is not true?