NO WAY! I was just referencing the karate kid movie in terms of LSAT prep to my friend today. Wax on, wax off.

The first sentence says "it is not uncommon for politicians to criticize..." and the second sentence (with the conclusion) says "such criticism." "Such criticism" is a referential phrase referring to the critics of the politicians from the previous sentences.

Also, if you take a step back from the LSAT of it all and just think about the statement, it's clear that, if one is saying something insincere, then they are being insincere. Don't overthink it.

Super helpful, thanks!

The questions on the LSAT are concerned about if the argument is valid or logical. Truth (in relation to the real world) is irrelevant.

So, yes, on the LSAT you do need to say the conclusion follows from the premises even if it is very easy to imagine a world (or even the real world ) where the argument is not actually true.

No, because "few" implies more than 0%. "Not most" can potentially mean 0%.

Yes, because "some" is a superset that includes "most." But "most" is a subset and thus more specific, so it makes more sense to interpret it as meaning "most" or more than half.

-m-> always means most

Yes. If most of something (over half) are something/are doing something, that implies that many of that thing are also something/doing something.

Luke becomes a Jedi or Yoda does not train him but not both.

This is saying the same thing as: Luke becomes a Jedi if and only if Yoda trains him.

It kind of does: "I" = the plaintiff making a showing that homosexuality is an immutable trait. So it does include immutable trait, but it's highlighting that this argument's premise is just that the plaintiff doesn't SHOW or CITE that homosexuality is immutable. Therefore, the argument is open for criticism on homosexuality still being an immutable trait (just that the plaintiff failed to show or cite that).

No it's not an assumption that Fat Cat knocked over the bin because him "intentionally knock[ing] over the bin" is part of the conclusion. Therefore, the premises must be supporting this stated conclusion for the argument to be strong/true.

Usually what weakens the argument LSAT questions will say something like: "If true, which of the following most weakens the argument?" You really have to rely on the "if true" part and disassociate from real life.

Yes, it would be ideal if all assumptions were stated premises and thus, in the context of the argument, undeniably true.

Everyone who wants a coffee with almond milk instead of whole milk either needs to pay a $1 milk uncharge fee or give the barista a kiss on the cheek. Susan is drinking an almond milk latter but she paid the regular latte price of $5. Susan must have given the barista a kiss.

VERSUS

There is a USB-C cord missing from E-Electronic stores shelves. E-Electronics store manager, Bob, is the only person who has been in the store whose phone uses a USB-C charger. Bob was recently talking about how his phone charger was broken and he desperately needs a new one. My hypothesis is that Bob stole the USB-C cord.