I'm still confused as to how and why Jon's explanation in the video is used to express answer choice A is correct and answer choice C is wrong. I'm not following his logic in the video. Can somebody please explain this? Also there was a comment below the video that there are plenty of old LSAT questions with similar type of errors. I'm not sure, but can somebody point out those questions and the type of error? Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-16/

I'm confused when, where and how the word "not" is used sometimes. For example, in this question answer choice E's conclusion is translated to if a university class is not conducted in a normal classroom, then it will be conducted in a laboratory. /UC ---> L

I thought "not" is group four and negates the necessary condition? Is it because the if already designates the sufficient condition and therefore the not stays on the sufficient as opposed to moving to the necessary side?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-1-question-21/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-11/

When writing out the conditional logic for the reporter, I initially got /C--> /M but when I went back to review I got C---> M. In other words, because of the if I kept cured as the sufficient and then placed medication M as the necessary. But I thought when you have the word not in the sufficient side and the not in the necessary side you can negate the necessary side twice. I guess what I'm confused on is when you have "not" written on the sufficient and necessary conditional. If not is on both sides of the conditional how do you use lawgic?

I wrote out my conditional for answer choice E as this:

Independent--> (/TF and EB)

Is that ok?

The video wrote Independent and /TF--> EB.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-19/

I'm confused how to write the conditional logic for this. Can somebody please explain this? When I see how the video skipped over labeling the first sentence like a premise, I got confused why he then uses it in conditional logic (TMU---> IASC)? I also got confused with what to do with the third sentence. I thought its a conclusion because of the keywords thus, until I got to the last sentence. I understand how he got the conclusion as /TMU.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-15/

I did not understand how and why he figured out which parts of the sentences he could use to make conditional statements from the video. He did not use conditional logic for the first sentence even though it had key words "not" and "are".

His diagram had:

LECC--> ELCI

ELCI--> LCI

LCI--> IH

I don't understand how he took from the sentence, "many people would do so" and instead wrote LCI. I'm just confused.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-06/

I did not understand the explanation in the video.

I diagrammed the following based on my understanding.

ES and PIL ---> OS

PIL ---> OS/e

Therefore, /E and PIL

I chose answer choice A thinking the only part that is missing from the premise to the conclusion is ES---> OS.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-03/

I understand now that the answer is A, but I am having a difficult time seeing why B is wrong. Answer Choice B says Theodora is ignoring the research cited by Marcia. Which I agree with since Theodora mentions people loosing their jobs in the meat industry and can't afford nutritional diets due to people becoming vegetarians. This shows Theodora ignoring Marcia's claim from the research.

I got confused because I feel there are two separate ideas being discussed. The first idea is in the first sentence in Marcia's argument and the first sentence in Theodora's argument. Which talks about whether vegetarian diet lead to nutritional deficiencies or not. Then there is the second idea, which is the second sentence in Marcia's argument and the second sentence in Theodora's which is lengthier. Marcia's second argument is vegetarians can get nourishment from nonanimal foods. Theodora argues by ignoring Marcia's research and claiming something else. Theodora gives the example of the people loosing their jobs and not affording nutritional diets. Since the second idea from both women's second sentences was lengthier from Theodora's argument I felt that was more important and chose answer choice B. How should I have approached this problem? I fail to see how the strength of the language in Theodora's first sentence vs Marcia's first sentence can be lead to the analysis and picking of answer choice A.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-08/

I translated the following into lawgic:

ES and SPIL --> OS

SPIL---> OS/e

/E and SPIL

Therefore, ES--> OS

I don't understand why in the video explanation the second sentence is dismissed. What does JW mean when he mentions it is not a necessary condition? So he strikes it out along with part of the last sentence and I don't understand why he does that either.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-03/

I still don't understand why answer choice E is wrong. My understanding is, iIf stress is a symptom of a weakened immune system, then wouldn't that mean that symptoms such as stress then lead to or cause the weakened immune system?

stress as a symptom---> weakened immune system

I don't understand how and why Jon explained it that a weakened immune system is the sufficient and stress is the necessary? And that the causal relationship is flipped.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-07/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-1-game-3/

I don't understand what is the difference between the biconditional used in the video G(-) /W and when you write the conditional G-> /W? If the biconditional means never together and always apart why can't we use the conditional. The conditional is going from positive to negative, which means you can't have both, and can only have one or the other.

When I read the question I assumed that the debris hurled into the atmosphere causing the blocking of the sun and extinction of the dinosaurs was only in the Yucatan Peninsula. Which is why answer choice B was attractive and I picked it rather than answer choice E. I understand why E is correct, but can somebody explain why or how I should have assumed the debris from the asteroid was around the world versus just affecting the Yucatan Peninsula?

I am still confused why the conclusion is adequate productivity --> high- tech technology. I negated the high tech technology part because of the "not" present in the sentence. I tried reviewing my notes and I can't find where he explains in the negation of conditional logic that this is viable.

But I was under the impression that conditional statements are not comparisons. I read the first sentence as a comparison and therefore ignored it since I did not read it as a conditional statement. How should I have broken down the first sentence to see the conditional?

Why is answer choice C correct? I thought this is a Most Strongly Supported question. I picked answer choice D thinking it is most supported since back then those who learned about natural processes through active learning where the only ones who learned at that time. So when compared to nonagricultural societies, they had learned how to grow plants. But I guess that is assuming too much. But that still doesn't explain to me why answer choice C is correct.

I remain unconvinced, and still think (C) is a better answer!

Answer (C) does not say that the nesting boxes are smaller, but just that they provide less space for eggs (because they get overcrowded). In my view, the given statements support this conclusion [that the boxes are smaller than the natural nests] because they seem to link the ducks' failed reproductive efforts to the fact that the boxes become overcrowded. If, by negating this conclusion, the natural nesting sites had just as much, or less, space for eggs, then this reproductive practice would seem to be disadvantageous from the start. Therefore, (C) seems to me to be the right answer.

Answer (D), on the other hand, makes less sense in my view. Why would the ducks' reproductive efforts be more successful when the boxes are hidden? Is the assumption that those nests, though hidden, could still be found by some and thus the practice would become less rare?