I loved the LR curriculum! As someone who had no prior knowledge on formal logic, I feel like everything was described in a digestible manner.

Feels like a huge step having completed the basics and now getting to apply it! Motivation renewed lol

lol i was thinking if Mr. T is the owner he wouldn't have been the thief of something from his own property

Okay, so JY eliminated E because it is trying to solve the phenomena instead of calling out a flaw in the logic, but I still don't understand why that makes D the better answer.

D is correct because it explains how the NR studies are not generalizable to scientific studies in general.

E explains that dramatic stories might be the result of reporting itself instead of the studies themselves.

Both ACs talk about over-generalizing biased samples (aka news reports) to scientific studies more broadly, in my interpretation.

If we're only given information on news reporting before reaching the flawed conclusion presented in the stimulus, wouldn't it make sense to think the news reporting itself as what's distorting the data instead of the frequency of studies? Why does it make more sense to think that's the flaw instead of the reporting? Just because the stimulus isn't set up using causal logic?

Maybe my brain is fried and I'm just being slow lol. Any help on how E is trying to solve the phenomena in a way that isn't compatible with this question type would be greatly appreciated. <3

he's been doing that in question types that aren't flaw questions too tho

lol i could see there being something to that bc they're probs banking on people not knowing the word

for some reason the explanations for this module leave me more confused if i got the question right lol

Lol June! I’m taking my time going through core curriculum and about to start regularly taking prep tests. Definitely planning to give myself options for fall LSATs too. When are you planning on taking it?

i felt like NA questions were more intuitive to me and now AP questions are nottt coming as naturally.

so interesting to see what people's strengths and weaknesses are in these comment sections!

im 😭 so 😭 happy for you 😭

This lesson was a great refresher on linking conditionals! I got the correct answer through POE because I could prove why the other ACs wouldn't guarantee the conclusion. I couldn't prove why D was right though, even though it felt like the only answer that could be.

I couldn't prove D was because I wasn't linking the 1st and 3rd premise together. POE was obviously a lot harder because of this too.

Lol love the feeling of improvement!

Stim is saying that they hire in-house first before they consider who is most productive. It only matters who is most productive if neither of them already work in-house

I'm memorizing too. After a while I'm hoping identifying question type is more muscle memory and less active time thinking about what I'm looking for

I thought this too, but that would mean disregarding the underlying rationale for why one shouldn't buy electric cars. It's not that you shouldn't buy electric cars because they cause pollution too, but rather "you shouldn't buy electric cars based off your own logic." AC A disregards the condition that triggers not buying electric cars, while C points out that trigger.

from my understanding when negating a condition still allows for the meaning to be communicated accurately.

it is wrong to play a practical joke vs. it is unacceptable to play a practical joke.

the negation of wrong isn't right, it's not wrong. so i dont think you could contrapose something like that for a PSA question. the negation of unacceptable is just acceptable though, so i think you could contrapose it for this question type.

written horribly but hopefully you can understand what im getting at. seems to work for me

Okay, I did not chose C because in the previous lesson JY said 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) and 2) that the conclusion must not be the sufficient condition. While this may (?) be true sometimes, I don't think it is reliable because the correct AC in this lesson broke both of these rules.

I think just knowing that the AC we're looking for will spit out the conclusion in the stimulus is the only way to go. Not much of a strategy because that's exactly what the question stem asks lolllll. Anyone else have another way of thinking about this question type?

Same!

Could still be nomadic if they're hunting both migratory and non-migratory though

I chose A because I thought hunting both migratory and non-migratory animals would at least (very slightly) weaken the portion of the argument that concludes N must be nomadic because they're hunting migrating animals (if I'm even interpreting correctly lol). But I see now that C is the only answer choice that explains why they could maybe not be nomadic even if the teeth evidence seemingly suggests they are

LMAO I thought Jeff was saying fuck all animals because I read too quickly

"this proposal should be extended to all experimentation on all animals" lol I was like "okay I guess it's D then"

But, of course, without the qualification on the degree of reliability, it would reasonably be considered an exaggeration.

I understand that D is the best answer, but I got tripped up on its assumption that court evidence has to be 100% reliable. Sasha's specific issue is exaggerating reliability.

If something is only 95% reliable, is it really irresponsible to call it reliable if it still gives largely consistent results? (I obviously do think evidence should be 100% reliable, but this is often not the case in real life).

Maybe handwriting analysis will never be 100% reliable, but does that mean claiming any degree of reliability is irresponsible?

All this to say that is a reasonable assumption and does weaken the argument, but the phrasing of "exaggerating responsibility" (which Gregory's whole argument was responding to) threw me off.

I thought both A and B didn't weaken the argument because I thought "just because the symptoms weren't documented doesn't mean they weren't there." Now I realized I brushed over the word "many". That definitely weakens the argument a little, for sure more than B.

Got this question wrong because I read too fast and though deer ticks were the exception to the rule that ticks drop after being fed to capacity, even though it never says this. Just spent hours doing resolve, reconcile explain questions so that's probably why lmao

Yes! This is why I thought E made sense. I think assuming they are false reports is a little less reasonable than assuming more reports: crimes generally means more convictions: crimes (hence people feel safer). I'm not an LSAT teacher though so idk lol

Ah, I see. E was the only choice that resolved the doctors advice with the seemingly contentious fact that he is actually fatigued getting 4-6 hours of sleep.