For question #3, can you only answer this the "rule exception" way? Or can you use the Group #3 rule. I didn't see the answer in the group #3 way so if anyone has it that would be greatly appreciated.

Does anyone else find it more simple to ignore the indicator words? I'm not sure why, but when I look at the indicator words and the negate sufficient or negate necessary, I always end up getting the question wrong or just getting confused...I would like to be able to do it the way it's teaching us, but it doesn't work for me and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.

If I am taking the LSAT after August 2024 is it necessary that I watch all these videos on formal and informal logic? Since we won't be doing the logic games?

For some reason B still seems like it is weakening the argument.

Why is the predicate not "to sabotage"?

Not sure if any of these work as assumptions.

- "The argument assumes that Mr. Fat Cat is the only being is capable of knocking over the trash. Maybe something or somebody else knocked over the garbage". For some reason, this one feels too obvious to me.

- "Perhaps Mr. Fat Cat is licking his paws to clean himself and not because he had just ate the salmon".

I got caught up in the language of "seen all of the recommendations". Isn't it possible that he just didn't show it to her at all? So it is not necessary that it is the case that he didn't include all of the recommendations? Couldn't it be either? Either he didn't show it to her at all or he showed her only partial recommendations. I may be overthinking the language in the question but I thought both possibilities were true. This is ultimately why I didn't pick AC E because I thought it would include both options. Is it just implied that he had to show her at least something for it to be misleading?

I have a hard time with SA, PSA, and NA. The only reason I got this one correct is by going through all the answers and negating them. Then looking back the premises see if the argument can still exist with that answers negated framework.

If I'm getting all of these SA questions wrong which lessons should I review?

I didn't choose C because it didn't address the prescriptive conclusion made in the argument and I thought that the answer had to do with both the premises and the conclusion. That is why I ultimately went with AC A.

This explanation confused me because I felt that an emotional and sentimental appeal are kind of the same in this context. Is it ok to use emotional appeals in an argument? I realize that the issue is with the use of the word afford, but if it hadn't used the word ambiguously, would this argument not be flawed?

So, are we only looking for disagreements in the conclusions of the stimulus passages? Or can we look for them within the premises as well... I chose B and I feel like that's where a lot of people went wrong. It seems like the answers in D were not nearly as explicit as those in B.

This is more of a general question about MSS question. Is the question stem asking us if true which one of the answers most strongly supports THE EVIDENCE in the stimulus, or the MAIN CONCLUSION in the stimulus. I know we started with the fill in the blank with the main conclusion, but is that how we should be thinking of these ones? Or should we be looking for an answer that could potentially be used as evidence to support the conclusion in the stimulus?

So, even though answer choice D seems most similar to the conclusion in the stimulus, it is not correct because the question asks about what is MSS by the evidence in the stimulus? I am not sure if that is where I went wrong in this one.

Also the "all" in AC C really confused me and that is why I didn't go with it. I felt all was too strong for what the stimulus was saying.

I'm confused because C doesn't say anything about repaying the "debt" if you are successful. It just says what happens if they are unable to repay it. Are we just supposed to assume this because it's implicitly implied by the word "debt". I am having the same issue with looking for something more specific.

A←s→B

A←s→C

conclusion: B←s→C

is this valid or invalid?