Because if you put it through the must be true test or the negation test, it fails, meaning it the argument can still follow even if, for example, the snakes molt twice a year. In that case we could still use the number of sections on the rattle to gauge how old the snake is even if they molt twice a year instead of once. In other words, A does not have to be true in order for the argument to still follow. In comparison to E, where if E was put through the negation test, meaning that molting WAS in fact related to how much food the snakles had, the number of rattles on the tail would no longer be an accurate representation of the snakes age.

Hope that helps a bit!

A is correct because instead of actually addressing the topic at hand (i.e. certain fundamental changes in government we would virtually eliminate our most vexing social ills) to prove that Arnot's conclusion is false, they attack one of Arnot's premises (the argument Arnot makes for this claim depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public). In this sense, Arnot's conclusion could still be correct. More specifically, certain fundamental changes in the gov could still eliminate our most vexing social ills, and perhaps someone else can provide a better argument with better premises to support this conclusion. Therefore, the author cannot accurately state that Arnot's conclusion is wrong. By attacking someone's premises, you are not necessarily proving that their conclusion is false, you are just weakening their argument, which could potentially be strengthened again if someone else gave a better argument for it.

I hope this helps!

Context!

So do we not think of the contrapositives on certain answers when deeming them as either the right or wrong answer? Because wouldnt E's contrapositive be considered a good answer? For example, because E is using Group 4 words (i.e. never), wouldnt we negate one and make it the necessary, which would end with us having: Satisfy Public Curiosity + Provides Accurate Info -> Good Journalism?

Thanks!!!

I would! A lot of the explanations point out things I never thought of and give additional info regarding why the wrong answers are wrong, which helps me better seek out patterns in future questions.

This took me like 5+ minutes to figure out when I did it by myself lol... Idk how I'm going to do it in 1 min.

Go check out the sections on Logic of Intersecting Sets and Quantifiers! The "some" arrows show how the statement can be read in reverse, but there is different rules for quantifiers such as "most" for example.

Can someone please explain what a stimulus is? I tried searching for it but could not find it. Thank you !!!

Love the breakdown! So happy the videos are back

Wouldnt it be true that if it was re-written as "Only birds migrate south in winter. The monarch butterfly is not a bird. Therefore, the monarch butterfly does not migrate south in winter" that birds become the necessary condition???

Yea, I'm pretty confused as well. Replying to see future responses

Why is it that question 4 cannot be put into a chain because "mix" is a sufficient condition in both statements?

Thanks!

What is the difference between V1 and V2? Why is there two versions? Is this because of the LSAT changing? If so, version two is the new version without logic games, right?