for some reason i never get a caption button on these types of videos that come after doing a practice question. but if you find a video at the top of a regular lesson with no practice, that should have a button to turn off CC. doing so has helped me get rid of them on these lessons, as well.

same! marking the excerpt in the stim before i read it helps me a lot. even saves a few seconds when i'm referring back to the stim while looking at answer choices.

me too, rhetorical question threw me off lol

when did these new lessons appear? this would've been so helpful to have earlier to study for the August LSAT. or to know in advance it was coming to help with pacing. :( #feedback

sometimes i'll start at medium and work my way up once i get 5/5 on medium! but my main place for improvement is on the hard questions, so focusing on those sets helps me. ik everyone's got different goals and things to work on, so spend your time on what makes the most sense for you.

I was just thinking the same thing! Wondering if this in another valid reason to strike that answer choice.

Plus it notes that "the trees on which the monkeys fed were also nearly extinct." The arrival of the monkeys didn't cause the trees to go extinct, they already were dying when the monkeys go there. Thus the monkeys didn't have their food source, which goes back to supporting the initial theory.

This lesson feels a lot different from the lessons for LR before the LSAT changed, and I feel like I'm missing something by only seeing these. #help #feedback

For the first example, "All Jedi use the Force. Count Dooku uses the Force. Therefore, Count Dooku is a Jedi."

The logic translation of the first sentence is "if one is a Jedi, then they use the force." The sufficient condition is "one is a Jedi." The necessary condition is "they use the force."

#feedback Agree, or at the very least some more detailed answers for some of the sparse ones. I feel like I had to talk myself through someone else's notes reading these.

If this follows the same definition of "few" as "some but not many," I believe it does inherently imply some (in this case, specifying that some is less than half). This is a good question!

At the very least, I always try to translate the sentences into the "if/then" form w/ contrapositives if applicable. The Lawgic seems to be a middle step bridging this translation if you face more complicated sentences.

Conditional arguments can be boiled down to "if/then" in logic, but as they showed in the examples of 1-10, they won't always be written that way on the test. So don't rely solely on "if/then" as an indicator for conditionals.

For this question, that's correct -- the subscript wouldn't be applied to the first premise. The first premise is generic. It says (simplified) if one wants to be part of a suspect class, then one must show that the defining characteristic is an immutable trait. Then you introduce the subscript (representing the specific) in the second premise. In this case, introducing that h is not an immutable trait.

The example I always go back to is from elementary school: all squares are rectangles (sufficient) but not all rectangles are squares (necessary). Helps me remember, maybe it'll stick for someone else :)

If you're just doing a subject - verb sentence, I believe yes. If you're adding in "milk", like they did in the lesson, then the kernel is subject - verb - object.

This is a classic case of necessary/sufficient conditions. I won't go into detail here because 7 sage explains them very well in a later lesson, just know that'll answer your question!