4/5!!

Generally, can we shy away from selecting comparative answers?

Congratulations! How long did it take you to see your score improvement?

I am still super confused, which answer was the correct answer choice?

Can someone please help me understand, some relationships. I am still very confused how we get to these steps.

A concession seems very similar to a counterargument to me. FFrom what I understand, a concession involves acknowledging the validity of an opposing argument, recognizing that it may hold some truth, but ultimately asserting that the original argument remains the stronger option. On the other hand, from my understanding a counterargument i counterargument is a direct refutation, stating that the opposing argument is wrong.

For question 4, could someone please help me understand why small animals move more rapidly than large animals negates to large animals move more rapidly than small animals. I initially thought to change to "some small animals ..." can someone explain to me why I am wrong to assume the negation would include some?

I think what initially confused me with the Group 1 indicators is that negation is not equal to the contrapositive. I was initially thinking of the Group 1, in terms of the contrapositive rule (double negation), instead, I needed to think of it as simply just the negation of the fact.

I feel like understanding Quantifiers is going to make most strongly supported questions so much easier to understand now.

When I completed the question, I did not even consider the additionally condition of "not investment value."

For question 5, I decided to think of it in relation to Kim Kardashian and her Crypto scam.

Domain: Knowledge of an element

Promotion of EtherumMax Tokens -> (aware of payment -> knowledge established)

Exception: Kim Kardashian did not know she was getting paid to promote the Crypto currency.

The exception fails and the rule follows because she was aware that she was being paid to promote the product.

Does this make sense ?

One question I have is how do we know that we are inside or outside the exception?

Are there more examples of triggers to rules and exceptions.

I had to watch this video twice and read through the replies to properly understand the Kick Up Conditional Conclusion. Will there be more places to practice this technique?

I was able to get the correct answer and draw out the Lawgic, however my issue was time. Please let me know if anyone has any tips of faster inferences.

Chained logicial statements are very complicated and confusing. However they slowly got better. I definitely need to practice my sufficient condition indicators.

I got question 1 wrong because I wrongly inferred to add a double negative when I only needed to add one negative. Meaning that lazy cats do not develop heart disease.

Finally was able to get 5/5 on all the questions!

Question 5 confused me, I thought that whenever would be a necessary indicator, but now I know that it is a sufficient indicator!

I was very confused by Q3! I thought that "Only" was a necessary condition indicator (which it is!!), however I misread the question which included "The Only" which is a sufficient indicator. Couldn't imagine getting a question like that on the test, especially with the time constraint.

Question 2 stated "some artists are equally insightful as some of the non-artists -- or some of the non-artists are less politically insightful than some artists." However, I came to this conclusion: "Some artists could be equally as politically insightful or more politically insightful that some well educated persons who were not artists." Would this be the same conclusion?

For question 5, I got the right answer, but I was unable to understand how we landed on the conclusion that the opposite of preserving artistic heritage was people currently alive doing things that would damage artistic heritage.

1. lower indoor temperature on warm days vs indoor temperature on very cold days.

2. quality being compared: maintained a lower indoor temperature

3. the "winner": indoor temperature on very warm days.

Question 5 confused me because I thought back to one of the prior lessons (implicit comparisons). For this one, I thought it was clear that it would be very cold vs. not very cold (e.g., warm days), however, I completely disregarded the wording of "accustomed."

I was very confused by question 4. When I fist analyzed the question I thought that there was no winner because there is no statistical evidence to show that people act selfishly more than they act unselfishly. Looking over the explanation it seems that I completely disregarded the "more often" in the sentence. However, I feel like questions similar to Q4 would be very difficult to identify.

Loved this example of how to make the LSAT more digestible. I find myself really getting bogged down by some of the more scientific and economic passages. This is a great tip.