In the explanation for these questions, there is a point made about what the author indicates using indicator words, but isn't this different from whether or not the truth of a premise increases the likelihood of the truth of the conclusion?

I noticed this in the counter example presented in the video for question 6. The answer says that if we changed the word "but" in the last sentence to "thus," it becomes an argument. This doesn't make sense to me because the three sentences still don't support each other even if the author intends to make an argument. The first two sentences being true doesn't increase the likelihood of the truth that disorganized places are not well stocked.

So I guess my question is: Are indicator words sufficient to make something an argument, or does it need to have a conclusion that is supported by a premise because according to the last few lessons the answer should be no.

I just made a discord server. Feel free to join up and let people know your study goals or study availability and what not.

https://discord.gg/AzpJkpdB

I'd love to join a study group. I'm in my mid 20s and am working through the holiday season. I probably can't commit to a test every other day, but I am aiming for 3 tests a week give or take. DM me if you're still accepting applicants :smiley:

I'm loving all the support y'all. I heard that there was a larger than usual volume of test takers for the Jan LSAT. I wonder how that will affects scores if at all. I am just glad to be spending the rest of January not doing LR drills every day. :neutral:

@ I also took it for the first time this week. I really wanted to apply this application cycle, but I feel like I did terrible on this test. Way worse than how I feel after a practice test. I am also feeling pretty discouraged this week but I am sure that we did better than we thought! Stay positive :smile:

So it says that the contrapositive of /N or /O > /M is M > O and N.

When I think of this with a real example it doesn't make sense to me.

So for example: if you don't eat well or you don't exercise then you can't be in shape. The contrapositive according the the rule would be if you are in shape then you must exercise and eat well. Using my common sense though I would think of it as If you are in shape then you must exercise or eat well.

Where am I going wrong here?

So if Joffrey kills Bran, then he could or could not also kill Robb. So then he may or may not kill Arya and then maybe he does or doesn't kill Sansa. Does this mean that if all we know for sure is that he kills Bran we can't say anything for certain about anyone else?