Hi,

I was practicing making some conditional statements for group 1 by implementing the generic "all jedis use the force" example. Using the "all" indicator, I wrote down the following: "force users are all jedis". Based on the translation rule, this should make sense since jedis is still the sufficient condition (the idea introduced by the indicator) for the necessary condition of being a force user. However, when I read the phrase in plain english without concentrating on the logic, "force users are all jedis" sounds like it is saying "all force users are jedis".

Is "force users are all jedis" still demonstrating the same logic as the original "all jedis use the force" (J→F)? I'm wondering if this is one of those examples where the english language makes a statement sound different than the actual logic within it. I would really appreciate some help/feedback. Thanks

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-20/

Hi,

I understand why A is correct, but I'm having a hard time interpreting the argument itself. From my understanding the author's argument in the stimulus is as follows:

P1: Political utility determines the popularity of a metaphor

P2: "Society as body governed by head" metaphor is pervasive

C: Thus, "Society as body governed by head" metaphor promotes greater acceptance of authoritarian regime than society as family metaphor

Doesn't the argument confuse necessary for sufficient here? In other words, the argument determines that the"Society as body governed by head" metaphor is politically useful from the fact that it is pervasive (P -> PU), but P1 says the opposite of this (PU -> P).

Am I wrong for thinking that the argument is flawed to begin with? Would really appreciate some feedback. Thanks!

Does JY formally address how to tackle these types of dual passages on recent LSAT tests?

Hi all,

I've been fool-proofing LG for the past week and a half, and as it pertains to sequencing games, it's become pretty clear to me that box items typically exert the most pressure on the board. Hence, whether it's a rule/question-driven game, looking at where to first place the box item will yield key inferences for the other rules. Along those lines, I noticed in some sequencing games with a twist that a rule preventing items from a sub-category from being next to other items in that same sub-category also exerts extreme pressure on the board (i.e. the notoriously difficult PT68G4, and to a much lesser extent, PT65G2). If we were to compare these two generic rules, it seems to me that the latter rule exerts even more pressure than the former. In other words, we should focus our attention first and foremost to the sub-category rule, even before a box rule in a scenario where both appear. Does this sound right to y'all? Also, if you guys have similar findings on some other generic rules that help you make inferences in different types of games, I'd appreciate it if you could share! Thanks and good luck on the studying!