@CaseyLiu just checking if I understand where you're coming from -- you're thinking that P1 and P2 mean the same thing but are the reverse of each other?

If that is what you're trying to figure out, then that's not what's happening.

Let's just assign random letters any time we have a new idea.

So P1) a is illegal --> people are deterred from doing a

And P2) a-->b -->c

Let's look at this expanded now

if car phones illegal --> people deterred from using car phones

car phone usage --> (distracted)--> threat to safe driving

Saying that using something and being deterred from using something are the same might be tempting as a contrapositive, but making something illegal the equivalent to being a threat to safe driving shows an underlying assumption-- that all things that are dangerous or threaten safety should be illegal.

This is actually a gap in the argument too. We know this law would make things safer, but there's nothing in the argument that says laws that make things safer should be adopted. That's outside assumptions coming in. And I definitely made that assumption until I sat through with this q during my blind review and caught myself. Hope this helps!

ridicule --> undermine pleasure

praise --> increse pleasure

---------

c: artistic merit depends on the artist and those who critically eval it

Wait, where does it say anything about pleasure being connected to merit? No. We need something that connects that bridge.

a) does that exactly

b) brings up why we might look to critics, but that doesn't explain why pleasure and merit are related

c) we still don't know the grounds for artisitc merti and how that correlates to pleasure

d) again, this still doesn't tell us pleasure and merit are related, though this is tempting. this is tempting because it feels like, yeah if they would look at what a critique says then it would influence the way ou feel about something but that points to our gap-- the argument is missing that artisitic merit comes from how much a piece of art can make you feel something (pleasure)

e) this isn't what we need, we need pleasure connected to merit. if we have that, then we have our a--> b--> c

@catqing From my understanding--

rule: hard and fast. something triggers some other specific thing, one leads to another.

principle: more general.

I think for our purposes it's to remember that most of the PSA questions will look like rules and what we've done so far. There will be specific conditionals, or logical bridges from our premise to the conclusion that we have to connect.

But, if there is a question where an illustration comes up, it's still PSA, just a more generalized version of that question type. We're looking for a pattern that we can apply broadly.

@rjon27 From my understanding, I think your lawgic is right for the second rule. But the first rule isn't that. The first rule is ONLY if, so that's a logically different indicator for whatever comes after that being the necessary conditions.

So that's Justified --> business operations

Then, the next rule says, in addition, if something else happens, then you can also still be justified.

If the second rule said, "In addition, one must also..." then that would look like the way you diagrammed it, then you could combine those to after the justified. But it just said if this other thing happens then you can also get to that same result. This isn't necessary, just sufficient to get there.

That's why we separate them.

@dreph25 it's because we have to assume that the other group of people didn't also change their diet and eat more cheese and baked goods or add that into their diet. I feel like the written explanation does a really good job of addressing this!

@StanHolt If it helps, I would think about what we actually know about this study.

We just know there was a comparative study done about stories in the past and present.

The comparison is looking at past and the present storytelling. I think the trap here is in that and taking the jump that because they happened in both times and in this comparative study, there has to be more or less or equal to in all these times. But is there anything about that in the stim?

No, there isn't. All we know is that this study is being used to prove the argument that storytelling is a universal aspect of past and present cultures.

So the argument doesn't care about how much, it just cares about "was this present or not?" because all the argument is trying to prove is that storytelling is universal. It just has to apply to all the cases. You don't need a million stories from every single period ever for storytelling to be universal. Even if you had one story from every era and every culture, you could say it's universal because it's everywhere. I think the second trap is here-- making universal and important the same box. They are different things. Sure, things in our life that are universal tend to be important, but that's a bit of a stretch from what we know in the stim.

From the stim, all we know is that storytelling was present. We don't know how much it was present or how important it was. So, can we say anything about that? We can't, because we don't know. If we looked at that study we probably could, but since we don't know, this can't be most strongly supported when there are better choices. This stays in the realm of could be true, could be false. Hope this helps!

@tariksoliman7 it's funky because it's structured strange but basically, if we break it down

context: Gov intervention can have negative effects.

This is just like medicine! (principle)

(what?) Yeah, most medicines have bad and good things, so the ONLY time it's okay to use medicine is if it would be worse to not.

SO, gov intervention is okay ONLY when....

Hope that helps!

@ayoubiii I think it helped when I translated it! So let's say there are some snakes that really only exist in Hawaii (endemic species). Even in Hawaii, they are mostly in Maui in one forest in big numbers. Like NYC population equivalent numbers(hot spot). But these snakes right, they need their homes in the forest, but hotels keep trying to build chains there. That would destroy their homes(vulnerable to habitat loss bcz of commercial development). Real bad for the snakes, right? Turns out, these types of scenarios with endemic species that all died out are where we get MOST of the extinctions in the last 100 years (modern-day extinctions). Environmental orgs like WWF are trying to help, but they have so many ops!!!! They have to deal with global warming, and there are also snails and monk seals and dolphins and whales-- nature orgs are BUSY. They can't be doing everything (limited number of battles that can be waged). When we take all of that into account, what makes the most sense? Hopefully this helps!

@kythax If it helps, I knew A was wrong because it was outside the frame of the argument. If you look at the whole passage, they are only talking about the specific group of species that are threatened with habitat loss. It's the endemic ones that are in hot spots. A is too broad to be right when B is more spot on. I just figured, look, we're talking about endemic species in hot spots for a reason, and A is casting way too large a net.

I'm probably not the best person to answer since I'm still working on it, but something that's really helped me with making inferences is doing blind reviews seriously. I break down every piece of the argument into my own words and work through why I would choose and would not choose an answer without knowing what is right or wrong. It's helping me pick up on patterns in the way the LSAT operates, and it might be helpful for you too!!

@NetsT which question are you referring to?

I feel like b was a trap answer for me. I assumed the rest of the context was all the conclusion, but that's not what the argument was saying. The argument is saying, so these critiques you're making? That's too fuzzy bro. The only one that does that is (A). (B) is just a repeat of what critics say. That is just context without the real conclusion, it's half of the real picture. When we take that with the idea of it being too fuzzy, that's the conclusion.

@CallMeEric I see what you're saying. I picked ambiguous examples on purpose to illustrate the concept that some is at least one since you mentioned sentence structure and grammar. You could rewrite the sentences to be clearer, but that's not the point of the sentences for this exercise. I'm going to disagree with you about some work being x>0, the some work being no work feels like an assumption outside of the words being said relying on experiences where people say that as a way to avoid saying they didn't do anything. But the point of the test is to rely on the words as given and assume they are true. It's a difficult thing to illustrate, given how we intuitively understand some, so if it didn't help, that's on me. I just thought having some examples tied to real situations would help you grasp the concept that some could mean at least one. The reality being, the LSAT is particular, and for the sake of this test, some means at least one, whether we like it or not, or grammatically, whether that clicks for us or not. Whether assuming some means 2 will affect you on the test into making false assumptions or not is something you'll have to figure out, but quite frankly, that's not an assumption I want to make. There's a lot the test does that I think is a wild take on English, but it's a test I want to do well on, so I toss the rules out that I know. So to answer the original question, instead of examples, I think it's just a thing you'll have to figure out on your own as you build a sense of what the testers want you to do. JY said grammar sucks, but I think you've got a great handle on that end. It's just the building of a sense that's left. Wishing you the best, sorry I couldn't help more. I'm sure you'll figure it out-- when you do, would love to hear back. Cheers mate!

Counterexample was a word I didn't know. The definition that came up: an example that shows it contradicts an idea or theory. So it's meant to disprove something or show something is wrong. So in the video, when JY says Cats are nice, and I say wait no, you're wrong, and point out that Garfield and Jerry mean-- that's a counterexample. Which is why B is wrong. The author doesn't say that the conclusion was wrong, in fact they say the conclusion might be right. That's not a counterexample. That's just being nice and curious, looking for alternative explanations.

@CallMeEric I think you're right in just translating it to at least one. If it's helpful, with "some" I think of it as a group of something. The group will have more than one member, so it will always be plural, but it's a singular group. So this group of students, some of them read. The them refers to the group of students because when it comes to a group of blank, you can to match the verb to the plural blank depending on the context (subject-verb agreement is wild with this), but you are talking about a singular entity. Do you know who would be a reader in the group? Not really, you just know there has to be at least one. Does that make sense that there's at least 2, probably, but do I want to make that jump? No, because at least 1 will cover that anyway. Let's take the opposite though. If there is only 1, but I've assumed 2? Now I'm in trouble.

Let's translate the Mrs. Stoops' class example. I'll be Mrs. Stoops. Let's say I teach, and at the school I teach I have a rival teacher, Mr. Rise, and I know MOST (so half or more) of his class can read. In my class, only one student can read. The other students are getting there and iffy, but one is for sure stellar at reading. Our class line is passing by his in the hall, and we chat. Then he drops this terrible question in front of all the students, "How many of your students read?" I don't want to tell him just one, that's terrible, what will all the other kids feel? So what do I say?

"Oh you know, some of them can!" and quickly change the subject. I know it's kind of a ridiculous situation, but I've banked on the ambiguity of "some" a lot, and I'm betting you probably have too.

(ex 1)

Mom: Have you been working on your final project?

Me: I got some work done, yeah.

Not a lot, but I at least did one thing. Maybe more who knows, but at least once, I picked up a pen and was working on this project.

(ex 2)

Me, after first date heading home: We had such a great chat, we should meet up again sometime!

I'm opening the possibility of one, and the plus is a question mark. Does this mean I want to see them twice after the first date? Maybe? Do I want to date them forever and seal the deal? Well, I don't know that for sure. What I do know is that I want to see them at least once. (you might say this is really a rejection, which is fair. But if you take the statement at point blank, literally, that's what this means)

And so it goes. The "some" is a blanket statement that's ambiguous enough that there's a lot of room for interpretation, but it's not infinite. But the lower limit is also thankfully low enough that this 1 amazing student gets their shine and the other students aren't embarrassed, and that I don't get rocked by my mom for not doing work on my final project, and that I get to leave the door open for romance without locking in 2+ dates or a marriage. Does this make me a liar? Thankfully no. Why? Because the baseline is 1 :)

Now if I said maybe for all of these, and used less definitive words, does that change the rule of 1+? No, but we are moving to hypotheticals. So in this hypothetical group, we have at least 1. It doesn't matter whether it's some can or some might, the some just means the 1+ and the can or might changes how we write and interpret the rules after. (I might have done some work =work 1+or haven't worked 1+, maybe we'll each other sometime = will see 1+ or /will see 1+, some students might be able to read = students that can read --> 1+ or /1+) I hope this helps!

@MarcusTsang yes I think you have it!

@JessicaVerdugoLopez something that helped me was to realize that the does not after is a negation of something, and this in combination with the no is just a double negative. So it's a positive. If that doesn't help, this falls into rule 3 and we negate the negation so we get the "emotionally connecting" idea.

@IsaacFleischer I don't think it's not conditional, but the way I understood it was that it was too vague for it to mean anything. It is a condition, right like your adoption rate can be on the lower end but we don't know what qualifies you to be on the lower end and still be eligible. So your adoption rate could be lower than 10% and you'd still be eligible, great. But maybe not. "Could" doesn't really tell me anything about sufficient or necessary, it's just saying we don't know, and since we don't know it's not a part of the argument we are mapping.

@Moffiemoff you can start with assassination fails, but if it does, you have to negate it, and then make the other one also negated. (Group 3 unless) So that means the assassination attempt didn't fail, which means it was successful. So you it should be assassination succeed -> cannot speech. the reverse is /cannot speech (aka speech)--> /assassination succeed (aka fail). It's just too many nos and nots for me personally, so I leave the things modified after the unless as the necessary and make the no speech positive.

@spindlynoodles I actually think there was a mistake here in line 2.

/(deliver speech) -> assassination attempt fail

it should be

deliver speech -> assassination attempt fail

In the sentence, it's "Amidala CANNOT deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails."

Since it's an unless claim, you pick a claim, negate, and make the other one the same as the necessary. I just think the one after the unless is always easier to keep the same because negating the other claim is usually just getting rid of the not.

Since you picked the first part, you would have to negate the cannot. So it's actually /(not deliver speech) which is deliver speech.

So you actually can't chain the ideas together in the way that you did, but you can link both ideas as necessary parts to Amidala giving her speech.

You'd just end up with one sufficient, 2 necessary and a claim that confirmed that a necessary happened. So you're right that the argument is invalid, but your reasoning doesn't capture why.

@cwferrari I was confused as well, but the video made it click for me! Basically, the point of this question is to illustrate the principle that sometimes we have to make an inference and put 2 and 2 together. The LSAT writers are going to ask you to make an inference sometimes, but I don't think it'll be as big of a stretch as this question. I think it will probably show up like the moving vehicle taxi example though, which just seems more reasonable to me.

@MarkAndrewGarner #feedback I'm not seeing the image either

@brightblurr If it helps, thought of this in terms of the visual big circle, little circles superset/subset visuals. What the premises are saying is that transformation is the little circle and the trial is the big one. And trial is the little circle for suffering. It doesn't work the other way around. You can't be transformed unless you have a trial, but you can have a trial and not be transformed. You can suffer and not have a trial, but if you have a trial, you have to suffer.

@BriellWhite yes!

@jdavlantis I think it's helpful to replace "necessary" with "must be" or "have to be". It just makes it simpler to understand for me personally.

So in the conditional A--> B, A MUST be in B every single time. A is tiny circle in B.

So if we look at the statement, it's saying if you're you're a microscopic organism, you HAVE to be capable of feeling pain.

That's illustrated by :

mircoscopic organism -> capable of feeling pain.

But if you flipped them,

capable of feeling pain --> microscopic organism

it reads if you're capable of feeling pain you MUST be a microscopic organism. But that's not what the sentence is saying.

I think a good way to check your work is also the contrapositive to see if it lines up with what the condition is.

If you're not capable of feeling pain, you CAN'T be a microscopic organism. This is true. It's what the sentence is saying and lines up visually. Being able to feel pain is the big circle for the tiny circle microscopic organism. If you're not in that big circle, you can't be in the little one.

/pain-->/micro

But let's take it the other way around.

If you're not a microscopic organism, you CAN'T feel pain.

/micro-->/pain

That's way too broad, and we can't get that from what the premise is saying. Pain is the big circle. You can be in the big circle but not in the tiny one microscopic organism. But this is saying the opposite, so that can't be the contrapositive. The contrapositive has to line up with what the premise says.

I think the contrapositive is actually what helped me with this a lot. Sometimes I would start with that and work backwards to figure out the logic of what the sentence was saying. Maybe won't work with more complex things, but it helped me figure out which one was sufficient and which one was necessary.