These examples/explanations are kinda trash. They are not uniform or cohesive. The notations between explanations goes from acronyms to whole words and vice versa. Please standardize the format.

Can you still translate fewer than half as some for the purpose of Lawgic? I feel these explanations are often super convoluted too.

Trying to clarify here, is referent "Medications" and the referential is "those"? thanks!

Helpful refresher especially for those whose first language isn't English. I find sometimes though I am a great writer and I have been in the US for 10yrs, I lack some of the basic bricks of innate knowledge that native speakers have.

I think it is because of the definitiveness of the arguments.

For the Disney argument, there are only 2 options in order to obtain the Genie Pass +; since he definitively did not do one, the other one MUST have happened.

For the Tigers argument, though it is true that not all mammals can be kept as pets because tigers are mammals and they would make bad pets. This answer is not as definitive because it still leaves it open to other mammals, the evidence used only accounts for a single species of mammals thus the sample is unrepresentative (and honestly, people have kept tigers are pets before successfully).

For the Fat Cat scenario, it is not definitive that the cat intentionally knocked over the trash can to eat the salmon. After all, the cat could have unintentionally knocked it over and eaten the salmon. The conclusion makes it so it must have been intentional for the cat to knock the bin which in turn makes the argument weaker because the premises might support the cat ate something but not that he did all the shenanigans mentioned to do so. Maybe he knocked it over and hit jackpot, maybe an owl knocked it over, or maybe the salmon fell out of the trash, you just don't know definitively.

This was a hard question, the only reason I think I got it right was because in my brain the first alternative explanation that popped up was, "oh, I bet the ethics violation accusations did not change anyone's mind," and immediately there it is.

This makes no sense. The entire gist of all live LR lessons I have been to, Alex or Bailey always remind you to never look at the question first. So how does this make sense.

Can someone help me understand how do contrapositives help you understand conditionals and how to make this knowledge more applicable? I have been having issues translating into lawgic, but once I put it as a contrapositive everything makes sense. Now I'm just trying to understand how to put this to use for the LSAT.

I keep getting some of them backwards B->A as opposed to A->B or oftentimes I can't even get what A and B are correctly. Any tips?

I thought about it this way. Not sure if it's correct #feedback

Suspect class= SC

Immutable trait = I

Plaintiff= h

Premise 1:

SC -> I

Premise 2:

h /I

Conclusion:

h/SC

Contrapositive:

/I = /SC

If no immutable trait, no suspect class

Since plaintiff h has no immutable trait (h/I) then they can't be in suspect class (/SC).

what are contrapositives good for though?

I had the same experience, it was burnout. I took 3 days off and my scores and brain went back to where they were before. The amount of studying you are doing is not sustainable. I did the same thing as you over the summer, but just for2-3 weeks and the return on investment curve just flattens past 15-20hrs a week. Please take care of yourself, either way, you are not supposed to be studying so hard so close to testing date.