How does he FKN know what the FKN assumptions are........???????????????????????????????????????????????????

#HELP

I don't understand how JY came down to A. How?

#HELP

Best of luck to you too.

I now completely understand this question, it all starts by ID'ing the fact that ALL WKN and STRG questions are arguments. This is a causal argument, the statement set up something plausible with the theory. Here the argument is saying A caused B, we know how to weaken cause and effect:

-Alternate Cause

-Situation is reverse

-Cause w/o Effect

-Effect w-/o cause

-Problems with the data

-Leading questions

-Not a representative sample

-No control group

-Generalizations

-Problems with the test or survey themselves

Here the issue is A caused B, comet caused dinosaurs to go extinct, correct answer presents the same cause w/o the effect that is why (B) goes to great lengths to let you know that both of the effect were very similar in nature because the X's have to match (D) is a trap answer because the X (dinosaurs) are not the same so theory could still hold and the argument is not weakened.

I wish JY would explained in detail every question just like I did, the methodology but he does not.

Also, for the regular assumptions what method do you use to find them or to try to spot them? It's pretty challenging but this is whar I do: I do what J.Y says, as soon as I get to the conclusion I'm like "this conclusion is not supported/justified at all" then I move on and look for the possible assumption BUT anyone can say "the conclusion isn't supported" THE challenge is that my anticipated assumption doesn't match the one in the answer choice so when I see it in the answer choices I don't selected it becuase it was never on my radar.

Is that what you do? I appreciate the feedback.

Also, for the regular assumptions what method do you use to find them or to try to spot them? It's pretty challenging but this way: I do what J.Y says, as soon as I get to the conclusion I'm like "this conclusion is not supported at all" then I move on and look for the possible assumption.

Is that what you do? I appreciate the feedback.

But I still have to keep track of the assumption right? But the main focus is the relationship between premise and conclusion structure?

And for strengthen questions, do I do the same as you're explaining but in the opposite direction? That is, to help the premise to conclusion relationship ?

How the in the hell do I answer WKN questions, can someone tell me one thing all of these questions share so I can follow the blueprint. Is it find the assumption and then weaken the assumption ? But the assumption is already the Achilles heal? Or is the assumption the weakness. What a nightmare.

Do I weaken the relationship between premises and conclusion? and if so how the hell do I do that? This question was as fkn nightmare, all of the weaken questions are not clear because I don't know what the task is.

#help

#adminhelp

That is part of the problem with J.Y. He sometimes draws statements into logic and sometimes he does not. I don't think there is a video where he explains, methodology wise, when we should translate into logic and when not to. I also know that there is not a set formula for when to translate statements/stimuli into logic but at least give us an idea when to diagram and when not to. Like in this question, clearly there are conditional phrases but he does not use conditional logic, instead, he uses diagram that zero people will ever draw in the real test.

And the question is not very hard, it just needs us to be on the look for the connecting assumption and (D) does it.

Very, Very frustrating.

#HELP

Zero people will ever draw this explanation out in the real test. None. Why can'y J.Y do actual methodology that we can rely on when doing the actual test? This is crazy and very upsetting. Why doesn't he say "look this questions is challenging BUT this is how you get through it" and then show us the way. Instead he says, "hey, you guys will probably get this question wrong, so just skip it" he literally says this, speaking of drawing inferences and conclusions, it sounds like he is saying "you guys aren't smart enough, so just skip it".

It sounds very elitist and very paternalistic. He primes students in this (and many other questions) by saying "this question is really hard". He is right, the question is challenging BUT ONLY if students have no clue what they are doing. But if the student has studied his lessons and is on top of things, this question is not not. There is a way to figure the question out. Instead to priming students and saying that this question is hard, he needs to say "look guys, this question is challenging BUT this is how you beat the question, just follow the things I've shown you" and then he can go about taking the question down step by step.

This is a great example of how more challenging questions are formulated. The premises don't support the conclusion, we know that, BUT the correct answer does not address this part wholly, instead the correct answer attacks the relationship between the premises and JY does not go explain this. I struggled with this question because I tried to anticipate the answer in the form of the conclusion is not supported by the premises so spot the descriptive flaw but I could't do it. I got it right in the end because the only weakness that I saw in the answer choices was the flawed relationship between the two premises.

I noticed that the same issue arises in harder strengthen and weaken questions, the LSAT knows we are zoomed in on the assumptions so they change it up and weaken or strengthen the relationship between premises. This is what I have noticed, I may be wrong but since JY doesnt mention any of this, I am just left wondering.

#help

#help

#help

J.Y at no point in the Flaw Lesson does he say: If there are conditional indicators in the flaw question go ahead draw them out. The conclusion will be Flawed 100% because it is a flaw question, diagram the flawed conclusion and set it to the side. The go back to the argument and make the correct inference conclusion as per the appropriate valid argument form, then compare the correct conclusion to the flawed conclusion in the stimulus. The flaw in the argument can be seen when the two conclusion are compared.

At what point did J.Y show us this say that in the Flaw Lesson did he say that?????

#help

The explanation for why C is not correct is a bad one. He says that C is wrong but does not explain his own two step test that the correct answer needs to be both descriptively accurate and it needs to define the flaw. This is another nightmare fkn question.

#help

The explanation on how Flaw questions that ask you to find the assumption ---which turns out to be a weakener is good one but it doesn't go into detail to fully explain it.

#help

Just draw out the argument. He does not go sentence by sentence to show us what is going on in the argument. Also, where is the "without" part of the argument. For the 10th time, J.Y is clearly, CLEARLY very good at this but explain the question fully; follow the lesson you showed us.

#help

I did really, really, really good on the SA drill exercises but I was weary because I knew the questions were NOT going to anything like the drills. In real LSAT questions, we have to parse out the fkn sentences, things he didn't even cover, examples where he says he knows what to do because of his intuition. Great, awesome, how the hell does that help us? I am beyond upset, furious, because J.Y doesn't show us the same exact thing every time. I have not gotten one fkn question right (and excuse my language) but I am so frustrated.

He uses conditional language in questions that don't even have group 1, 2, 3, or 4 words ???

How can I parse the damn language, when he doesn't show us.

#HELP

I read the first sentence and I understand. I read the second sentence i don't understand nor do I understand the connection to the first sentence. Third sentence, I dont know what's going on, what is the damn task?

My number one problem in all LR questions is that I read the argument and I dont know how to critique it as I'm reading it, thus, I believe it, I don't say "we'll, this can't be right, the premises don't support the conclusion" or like on this question (as you said) you can spot the assumption and make a prediction. I don't spot anything becuase I don't know what the 2nd and 3rd sentences say. It's a comprehension issue, no overall understandingof what the statements say individually and collectively in relation to each other. I can't spot the gap in relationship.

Here I am one week later doing question problem sets and I still cannot understand what #17 is asking. One cannot even attempt the question when one does not know what it says. Moving on to the question is just a guess. I get lost after the pre-modern part.

#help

I parse through the language. I don't know what it is saying. SMH.

Literally no idea what J.Y means, why cant he explain exactly what he said but in non-expert friendly way. He even said it REPEATEDLY through the explanation; that the higher level of analysis isn't needed. Then why do it? Or do it after you explain what the actual question wants us to find. Show us exactly what part of the agument it is and why and what the other parts of the argument are and why those are wrong.

I think MBT and Argument Part questions are the foundation to the entire LG section because from there we can build and move on to Flaw, Flaw in the Reasoning, WK, STRG, NA, SA etc. because we can dissect the different parts of the argument.

#help

#help

#help

Just skipped this question, J.Y's explanation is way more confusing than the question. Just explain the question as plainly as possible, that's it. He draws 5 pie charts then another analogy to a bank account. WHAT !!!??? I hate it when he uses other subjects to explain a question, use the same subject because that is what the question is about.

SMFH.

#help

#help

#help

Why, oh why on gods green earth is J.Y using the LSAT and law school example on the last part of the conditional??? They are not the same. Sure, the idea in the end is the same but the words used by the last sentence to get to CS down→OP down are not. He does the damn contrapositive in his head, this is the type of shit that is so infuriating. Why doesn't he do it using the "only if" group two indicator THEN the contrapositive so we can follow along. He lost me and I am sure as hell he lost many, many other students.

He has made the point that he is really, really good at this but I am not there yet. SMFH.

#help

#help

#help

The logic lessons are without a doubt key to getting these questions right BUT J.Y needs to do another video(s) where he goes in depth with the different ways to parse out the language. Because while I may know the logic, the LSAT writers use all this convoluted language and it is very frustrating. What is even more frustrating though, is when JY doesn't explain how exactly to attack these type of convoluted wordy questions. Of course there are many, many different ways the LSAT writers will try to make our lives difficult but there are over arching patterns and J.Y needs to create a video of the most common and least common ways the MBT are formulated. Just like he did with the embedded video but there are also other questions that are very hard, it isn't until he tells us "look, this is what they did to trip you up" but sometimes he doesn't explain and we have to deduce what he is doing. I know this is part of the way we learn but not always but it is the only way we learn. I am left with many questions that I can't ask because the explanation isn't done in depth.

#help

#help

#help

Really good explanation on this one, I got the question right even though I missed the element that has to be carried over that leads to the ←s→ relationship in the correct answer. Mainly because all of the other answers are bad. My question is, why isn't there a double conjunctive arrow coming out of "all parrots"? The statement reads "All parrots can learn to speak words AND phrases ???

#HELP

#HELP #HELP #HELP

JY DOES NOT draw the embedded conditional the same way he does the second and it is so confusing. He uses UNLESS, /OPM→(/RC→DSNG) leading to the embedded /OPM & /RC→DSNG

BUT in the second embedded conditional he does it a different way and doesn't use the UNLESS. Why TF NOT?????????????????? He doesnt start with the unless. Aside from the fact that this is an impossible question...you know what whatever.

Again, #22 same thing keeps happening, A is wrong but JY doesn't explain explain (A) correctly he just expects us to know what's going on. (A) says: No self-motivated salesperson who are not highly successful are well organized. He says that there is an intersection b/w no self-motivated sales person & who are not highly successful. How does he know????????? Tell me, I want to know as well. I guarantee you that zero people were like "Wait a minute, there is an intersection b/w /HS &SM thus leading to /HS & SM→/WO

How?

#help

#help

#help