I started beginning of july and I'm taking it June 2025 and a second time in 2025 if things don't go too well!

(deleted)

This is amazing thank you so much

For question 6, I had answered it like this:

I kicked cooperative farms up to the domain.

Then, since but on the LSAT implies '"and", I had my Lawgic form like this:

Domain: Cooperative farms

/direct Tyrell control and under Tyrell influence --m--> pay tax.

Can this be done or am I mixing conditional logic into this too much?

I was confused at first too but from my understanding of it, the argument is invalid because there is no sufficient condition to SAS. SAS is the sufficient condition in the argument that guarantees /P. SAS is usually placed as the sufficient condition to the necessary condition but nothing in the argument guarantees it.

Remember, sufficient conditions guarantee a conclusion, while necessary conditions are required to be there for a conclusion to be drawn but don't guarantee it. As per the form of the argument (which is what matters in formal arguments), there is no sufficient condition to guarantee SAS, and if nothing guarantees SAS, then nothing guarantees /P, to which SAS is the only sufficient condition. If, for example it was switched around where AAF--> SAS instead of SAS --> AAF, this would make the argument valid because then we can validly infer that since AAF is a sufficient condition to guarantee SAS, and SAS is a sufficient condition to guarantee /P, then /P is a valid conclusion and this makes the argument valid in form.

If I made a mistake please feel free to correct me anyone!!

Thank you so much! This makes a lot of sense. A primary rule in the LSAT is to NOT bring in knowledge from the outside. My brain assumed that because the linguists studied it that it must be true but the inference was made in my head, not in the argument.

Once again, thank you!

I'm really glad!

I swear this is super important. I was looking at some LSAT questions before I started my prep and some of them I'd read and my brain would go like nope. I'd have to slowly go over it and dissect the sentence so my mind can digest the information it offers, which wastes a lot of time!! Knowing that the LSAT puts test takers under a strict time limit, saving the extra seconds or even minutes that understanding some sentences takes can be helpful.

Before and after fuel prices increase*

The way I understood it is that a premise and conclusion have a support relationship. The premise is there to support the conclusion. In a world where the premise is true, the conclusion is likely to be true. There is a link between both. In 9.3, the fact that fuel prices were low, and then rose, is not stated in a way that aims to make an argument about why average-income individuals use their cars less. There isn't a relationship between the first statement and the second. They exist independently from each other. I think a variation that would have made this statement a premise + conclusion is if it were structured in a way that targeted more why people don't use their cars for leisure activities anymore. Something more like " Before fuel prices, people with average incomes used their cars for leisure activities. After fuel prices, there was a significant drop in the amount of people with average incomes using their cars for leisure activities. Therefore, fuel prices are an important indicator in explaining the use of cars for leisure activities in average income households." This leaves room for assumptions but I'm just trying to get my point across. What is missing from statement 9.3 is the support relationship that was taught in the first lessons. Hope this is somewhat helpful, I'm sorry if it isn't!

If anyone has anything to add or if I made a mistake, please let me know! I just started my LSAT prep today and I do not want to spread false information to anyone. Thanks!!

Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time. Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras.

Can someone please explain why this isn't an argument? I can't wrap my head around it. Thanks in advance!!