Click on the passage video and that is where he goes through them the first time

I was thinking the same thing, I feel like in other questions an answer has been wrong for this assumption. Couldn't you really only say that at least not to the damage of one individual?

#help For answer choice C, wouldn't an alternate claim be that the club knows that another rental store is offering a deal and that is why they are not taking the deal today, wouldn't that resolve that idea? So if C says that it is not the case that there is another deal, it is also denying another competing hypothesis?

So D is incorrect because an attempt to synthesize water would not increase water quantity by much and therefore not make a sufficient increase in the amount of freshwater overall? Therefore it is ok if there is at least one attempt that increases the water quantity, because that does not mean that it does enough to effect the levels needed for all humankind.

I also picked B and was a bit confused. My way of trying to understand now is that B is not necessarily untrue of the situation (at least I think it is reasonable), but that the main point of the argument relates to the net benefits and D is the stronger answer in regards to the true purpose of the stimulus which is to say it increases net suffering.

Not at all. I pretty much followed the logic that I would not be able to get those questions quickly so I usually skipped them. If I diagrammed anything it was only the stimulus.

#help I am understanding and diagramming these questions correctly and can understand that the flaw is switching up sufficiency and necessity. But the way that the answers choices are worded when they are in the general format has been so confusing for me, any recommendations on how I can get a better grasp on understanding the wording for these?

If we take a practice test through LawHub is there any way we can get those analytics on 7sage?

I am mapping these all out correctly and I understand the prompts but I still choose the wrong answer. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to actually pick the right answer from the conditional statements that I create, I can see the logic but cant seem to translate to the answers

I think you are right that even if Penn had an exemplary record but failed rule 2 it would make sense that he should not receive the award, which makes sense for B. But A is the stronger answer because it points even more to the fact that Franklin should get the award over Penn because Penn is not even eligible. The way I looked at it, it wasn't that B was necessarily wrong it was just that A was a stronger choice that guaranteed the conclusion more.

I am with you too. It said that if it cost nothing AND satisfied customers and they didn't accept then it was to hurt Marty. A says that it would have satisfied customers but we don't know that it cost nothing. If it costs Checkers something than you can not say the only reason was to hurt Marty. Dont you need a combination of them both? If it was or then I can understand how it could be right.

Totally agree that some of these videos are way too long and maybe even impede my learning a bit. For the You Try lessons at least they also have the link to another explanation video that is like the ones they have for all other practice problems. It's to the right of the button that says what priority the question is to you.

#help this does not make any sense to me. how does the production of paper in equal weight of plastic affect the actual use, shouldn't the correct answer tie something into use? is the production more harmful because once it is made people are using it more and therefore discarding it more? if people used plastic more the argument would be flipped so I don't understand how that gives good support. I don't see how D relates to use

I think I feel the same way with a lot of question types, but for this question type we are looking for outside explanations that aren't mentioned to help explain. So most of the time I agree, but here some random words might be what we are looking for.

Are there times when causal logic would have a conditional claim in it? Or if I see causal logic I know there isn't any conditional. The "when" used in the stimulus confuses me a little bit and I wonder how I can know it is not conditional and just causal.

Yes, I think so because then that sentence would be lending support to the first sentence

I think it has to do with the fact that the two sets do not have to overlap. Yes they all know how to play the violin. But the small set in the New York Philharmonic do not need to overlap with the other part of violin players who are not very good. Technically they could, but you cant say for certain either way because the sets do not have to overlap. I think if the sets do overlap then you can yield that inference.

If you were saying "It is not the case that all dogs are pets" then you are saying that not every single dog is a pet, but you are also saying that there still are dogs that are pets, therefore there's at least more than one dog who is a pet (some). For negating some you would say "it is not the case that some dogs are pets". In this case, you are saying that not even one dog is a pet therefore none are. Negated all means not the entire group but still some, and negating some means none at all.

In what kind of situation would I apply this? No LSAT question is going to tell me to negate the conditional relationship. Is this just to get mastery of the concept or does it apply to question types?

I understand all-> most-> some, but can most imply many? why or why not?

You cannot draw the conclusion that he can grow weed and meth because you cannot assume from the necessary being /LSD that meth has to happen.

if the write up is

weed-> meth

LSD->/meth

then the contrapostive is

meth -> /LSD

the no LSD can exist without the meth because the meth is the sufficient in that condition, so just there could be no LSD in the absence of the meth