Because the premise said "experienced by many victims" and I saw "not all" I was lie wait-like i don't really care if not all experienced the hiccups, the argument says "many did" so that enough. Still, a really difficult quesiton

@beneley2k this comment made my day srsly

@Kevin_Lin agreed.

didn't fall for the trap but was hanging on a small thread which was the fact that the hypothesis never said that the larger families was causing those kids to more likely to develop allergies-its saying the EXPOSURE TO GERMS whether they do that through a large family OR not it doesn't really matter. this was a very very implicit conclusion I saw there

Oh man not my STEM degree coming in handy.

everyone in the discussion wondering why C is wrong meanwhile I was so bent on it being B. LOOL

@Mina.G Really? I thought that (E) totally weakened the conclusion. Because the conc. says that by hiring the bus tour people they are trying to expand their NEW consumer base. But (E) says well actually no they're just trying to get their EXISTING consumers to change their habits.

Like everyone else I was stuck between A and E. I ended up choosing A because it best explained the statistic.

Stim says: Less car thefts happening now, but car thief's now are more likely to be convicted of stealing cars.

My immediate instinct was: "well, maybe the police have set in some stricter rules so they can catch these thieves"- but when I went to go hunt for that answer I was disappointed to find that there wasn't anything that matched my initial thought. C was saying the the opposite.

So then I started my POE.

(A) was the best choice because it explained the first part "although there are fewer car thieves..." then explains why there is a greater proportion getting caught more. Its b/c 5 years ago, there were many car thieves that used to attempt to steal them, but would abandon the cars. So, there wasn't anyone to report the theft. Now that the proportion of these thieves have decreased we are left with all the others, who obviously steal the car, and the owner notices. Now the statistic is swayed to one side since the other type of thieves have decreased.

@AdamPrice0311 Agreed. I feel like I use it when the language is really convoluted otherwise, I don't need to use it for these types of questions.

@cj3village agreed, MBT is by the far hardest. These ones aren't the easiest, but with practice become pretty doable. I would say main conclusion questions are the easiest for me!

I was SO CLOSE To picking C then I was like WAIT what does provide the basis of rejecting mean. Sorry had to cheat and googled that it means its a "must be false question". That's the only reason I got that question right. Now I know for the future HOW important it is to read the question stem!

sorry mapping and conditionals is a no for me! I just read the stimulus and got it right away. I think sometimes the chaining confuses you even more!

@jeffwongkachi160 exactly what I thought as well which is why i got it wrong. I thought the negation of comfortable was not comfortable not uncomfortable. Anyways when i did blind review i ditched the chains and just logically worked out the passage and got it right. I feel like sometimes the chaining is so convoluted and unnecessary

@JoshGaller I got this wrong as well so I am going to try and explain hopefully this makes sense:

This is the final chain I ended up with

decrease in cost of living --> more consumers live DT --> profit increase --> traffic congestion decreases.

How you get there and specifically the last translation is by using "group 3 indicators for negate sufficient.)

1. more consumers DT-> profit increase

2. decrease in cost of living -> more consumers DT.

   (so now we can link these two statements by putting decrease in cost of living in front of more consumers DT).

3. last statement is translated through the UNLESS rule. Take whatever comes after unless, put it in the sufficient place and then negate it. It should look like this: /traffic congestion decreases -> /profits increase.

   (So look how can we link this if there both in the negative? we find the contrapositive to flip so we can link up profits increase)

4. Contrapositive= profit increase -> traffic congestion decreases.

   (So look now we have a negated version that can cleanly link up to our pre existing chain.

   Hope this helps!

Question one GOT ME. But hey on the blind review I corrected it. Everything else was easy going from there.

@CaseyLiu I think the way I see it is that these lessons are for different question types these strategies are not used for the "if all these statements are true than which one is logically true" questions. It's more for "which part would strengthen the scientists hypothesis". I think 7sage doesn't really do that well in the beginning which is explaining the question types FIRST. But i think it goes into depth in later lessons. So, for a first timer its harder to grasp for sure.

@SheridanMcGadden thank you so much. This helped me understand it way better.

could we also say in the opera example, that the conclusion is confusing sufficiency for necessity. In other words, lawgic says:

Classically trained -m-> recite musetta Waltz

/classically trained -m-> /recite musetta Waltz

Conclusion: Recite Musetta waltz (Anna) --> Classically trained

Essentially I saw this is a flipped conditional now reciting the waltz is necessary for being classically trained which is not the case. As the previous lesson stated triggering the Necessary condition yields no valid conclusion.

Another way I thought of it more in an intuitive way was: Okay lets say 51% of classically trained opera singers can recite the waltz and 51% of those who are no classically trained cannot recite the waltz. This doesn't mean that Anna cannot be apart of that group that is classically trained and cannot recite the waltz.

Gosh sorry for the all words!

@ratman23 I'm flattered haha

Do you think I could flip B <s> C to be C<s> B so that some of the C's that are on A are also B (at least 1?). I don't know if that make sense:

A C B

A C

A C

A

A

mapped everything correctly, proceeded to choose the most blatantly wrong answer haha. I get why after the explanation I really need to reiterate what I am looking for.

This took my a while but I think I understand it in my own way: disjunctions show two alternatives if A then B happens or C happens. BUT an embedded conditional is when "if A then B happens and if B happens then that triggers something to happen in C".

my brain refuses to under stand this. sorry

4/5 tripped up on #4 but when i saw the answer something clicked. Its almost like I found a hidden premise by chaining all the parts together.

WOW, After two years of studying for the LSAT and doing it twice, something inside my brain clicked. WOW just wow.