Ariamstrong03, if I understand the videos and your argument correctly, then I believe you're right. Membership in set A is sufficient for membership in set B, the larger and more inclusive set. Baseball (Set A) is sufficient for being a sport, but not necessary. Afterall, there are other sports. There's basketball and soccer, so those might also be other sufficient conditions for being a sport. To translate your argument a little clearer, IF the game is baseball, then the game is a sport. But not, however, IF the game is a sport, THEN the game is baseball. SPORT subsumes baseball, not the other way around. If I told you, today, that I was going to go play a sport, you wouldn't immediately assume that I were going to go play baseball. Me playing a sport does not tell you anything about what sport I am going to play. But if I tell you that I am going to go play baseball with some friends, then the obvious assumption, based on our shared understanding of English and sports, is that I am going to go play a sport.

So to sum up, yes, you're right. Baseball playing is sufficient for being a sport, but not necessary. Being a sport is a necessary condition for being baseball, but not sufficient. Another way to phrase this might be: "If you're baseball, then you MUST be a sport." But NOT "If you're a sport, then you MUST be baseball." That may be valid in an argument, but for the sake of your example, it is both not true, and not valid.

I hope this helped. I'm also figuring this stuff out, so I might not be totally correct.

Thanks

-P

#feedback Is this question correct? I answered "E" and the question marked me as wrong, but JY also selects "E" here and explains that this is in fact the correct answer. I think either the video or the question needs to be reevaluated for accuracy. In my opinion, "E" does seem to be the correct answer. Thank you.

good luck on the grind homie

I second this; nomenclature isnt nearly as important as substance. If you understood that this was a sample-population-study-type question (lol) then you can just compare the logic against the answers. Knowing the names can be helpful, but I believe it's hardly necessary.

Well said!

i feel the same way lolol

Try to understand logically why your answer (the first one that you chose) is correct. If you cannot justify it logically, then you are prone to have your intuitions clouded. The LSAT writers are really good at crafting answer choices that are remarkably similar when you're under pressure. I instantly saw 'A' and chose it, but then I contrasted its strengths against the weaknesses and strengths of the remaining answer choices, but this process only helped me understand why, in fact, 'A' was the correct choice. Hope this helps. Good luck!

Fr

Lettuce pray to the LSAT gods for mercy and 1/5 difficulty questions

Me too!

I'm no expert in psychology, but take Bipolar Disorder, for example. Bipolar manic episodes may result in a person becoming hypersexual. This may not be possible in cultures wherein a hypersexual person, especially a woman, might be subject to the death penalty. Thus, a woman, who is otherwise manic and hypersexual, may not be able to express this symptom of Bipolar Disorder. Thus, cultural norms, and by extension 'culture', affects how mental illness is manifested. Answer 'C' proposes that there may be other causes for the effect not noted in the argument, but 'B' merely expounds on the already existing causal relationship.