"All" could also be bidirectional, right? All members of a subset are members of the superset. Just as when two sets are identically sized/overlapping, all of the members of one set are members of the other as well.

So could we express some "all" relationships as A B ? If it's appropriate? Or does this open me to a trap I'm missing.

Indeed, “Get the fuck out of here J.Y.”

FINISHING LR CURRICULUM WITH A 5/5 LESGOOOOOO

For me at least, a faster way of eliminating other answer choices and recognizing E as correct is to recognize the following structure in the stimulus:

Premise: likelihood of EVENT in presence of A > likelihood in presence of B

Conclusion: EVENT ‑m→ occur to A

When I realized that the premise worked by comparing probabilities, it was p helpful in recognizing that E is right since it's the only one that really accurate compares probabilities of events (handing out more snacks in presence of other kids vs. in presence of their /other kids)

#feedback JY's explanation was honestly not super helpful-- I wish he had spent even a few more seconds explaining why B is the least bad answer. Reading the comments, though, helps a bit

I do not feel comfortable approaching this question, and there's no way we're going to be long-term friends.

#feedback I thought MP was referring to some question type we hadn't covered yet and got very confused until I realized MP must have meant MC (Main Conclusion). It would be easier in the future to define MP as Main Point/Main Conclusion in this lesson. It would also be nice if you could rename the sections for MC as MC/MP

#help I think my biggest confusion about this is that I don't see how, linguistically, these indicators like "only if" introduce necessary conditions. The Kumar example is indecipherable to me unless I make a subset/superset venn diagram and I realize that, well, ok if "only if" introduces a necessary condition then it must be the subset (since we learned that in a previous lesson), and then logically there could be many scenarios in which Kumar was +5 minutes late but was not cited as late (e.g. teacher didn't notice him sneak in, Kumar was excused, etc.).

But when I read the phrase "students are cited as late only if...", then I can't help but get confused and read the following clause as the sufficient condition. Maybe I just don't get the meaning of "if" versus "only if." Something about defining being cited as late as "only if," at least to me, makes it almost seem like the subset of "late" should take up the entire superset of "5+".

Does anyone else have the same problem? Is there a way for me to more intuitively understand the meaning of "only if" and "only"?

Had been getting cocky not needing to diagram stuff anymore, but this question really humbled me. After watching this, I realize I could have gone from spending 4 minutes on this question to probably like 2.5 if I had just diagrammed.

I had no idea until now that "is the same as" was a bi-conditional indicator. Unless I were to memorize that indicator, though, I'm not yet able to see how this example is a bi-conditional. #help

#help Maybe I don't understand what symptoms are. Can somebody explain to me why the appeal to symptoms in A weakens the argument, but the appeal to symptoms in B doesn't weaken the argument? I am still completely on the fence between A and B. I definitely understand the explanation in favor of B --- that the presence of Ebola victims without hiccups symptoms doesn't change the fact that hiccups is still a symptom of Ebola and that there are many Ebola victims (Including the Athenians, presumably) who did have hiccups. I agree that the appeal to symptoms here is merely consistent with the argument. But how is that different from the appeal in A? To me this is almost logically equivalent to the statement in B.

Given,

1) A's statement: Ebola victims --many→ /Athenian symptoms

2) non-hiccup symptoms are a subset of the superset of non-Athenian symptoms (i.e. symptoms that do not appear in the Athenian cases)

3) For LSAT purposes, "many" and "some" are the same

Then,

Ebola victims ←s→ /hiccups This is exactly the lawgical rendering of B's statement.

This is why I literally cannot distinguish why A is anymore weakening than B. If B is non-weakening, then A should be non-weakening too. This is why I was stuck, and I still am stuck. Any help would be appreciated!!

Learned an important lesson to really distinguish what the question is asking you. For me, D was almost a trap because it obscured what it is that I'm trying to resolve. Answer choices A through C get you into the habit of comparing the merits of the 12-year study and the 24-year study --- you think to yourself, okay, I can eliminate these answer choices because they STRENGTHEN the mechanisms within the 24-year study and show why the 12-year study maybe wasn't as effective.

By the time you hit D, you may be thrown off because it presents a totally alternative hypothesis for the phenomena. After spending so many answer choices finding support for the 24-year study's causal story, we're surprised that D weakens the 24-year study. For a split second, I thought "ok, D must be the correct answer because it weakens the 24-year study which I have been supporting." Then I remembered that the answer choice wasn't asking me "each of the following makes the 24-year study more convincing than the 12-year study except.." but rather "each of the following resolves the apparent discrepancy except..."

The complicatedness of D and the pattern of thinking when eliminating A-C gets you lost in the weeds, thinking about the mechanisms of each study. But D ends up still resolving the apparent discrepancy, even though it does so through a different causal story. D says, "the 24-year study totally messed up the explanation for X result, but X result still holds. And it's for a reason (smoking) that isn't present in the 12-year study. At the end of the day, then, the discrepancy is explained."

Thankful to my friend who never shuts up about random marine biology facts and for somehow drilling this in my head at some point in my recent memory

A little confused--- can answer choices in RRE questions ever be false/untrue? The stem says that all answers are to be taken as true. So for B, the video even argues that one reason to reject this answer is that it contradicts the stem by claiming that there are some harmful insects that the zapper is not as effective at killing (i.e. mosquitoes). Rather than say that B is "wrong"/contradicts the stimulus (since RRE answer choices are to be taken as true), wouldn't it be more correct to say that B is simply making a wrong comparison/committing a category error? The phenomenon demands an explanation of effectiveness of zappers vs. effectiveness of other means, but B talks about effectiveness of zappers against mosquitoes vs. effectiveness of zappers against other insects.

I'm kinda hung up on this because I am still not sure whether to treat answer choices as completely true or not. Because if they AREN"T all guaranteed to be true, then it's more of a headache and more cognitive burden for me to then evaluate, for each answer choice, "ok, is this actually making a true claim."

A takeaway from this lesson for me is to never forget what you kicked up into the domain.

Another one is that sometimes it's easier NOT to kick up the domain. When I wrote this down as a conjunctive, it became immediately clear to me that the contrapositive of one of the rules made clear to me that Pat must be not a member

"is a member" & >10 vids → discount @ Main St.

/discount @ Main St → "is NOT a member" OR />10 vids

So Pat here did not get a discount at Main St because he got a discount at Walnut. This means he is one of two things. He's either not a member or he did not rent more than 10 videos --- but we know he did rent less than 10 videos. It's immediately clear then that he must be not a member.

Repo-ing your dog is crazy :(

So humbled by this question. Takeaways:

So humbled by this question. Takeaways:

This one was real, real tough. I picked D, but now know what I did wrong. Does anybody have tips on how they would differentiate A from C? To me A and C are both non-ideal in that they both rely on some jumps in logic/assumptions (i.e. A relies on an assumption that storytellers actually borrowed themes instead of independently coming to the same themes; C makes a pretty big categorical jump to say "ALL" cultures). If I were to see this on the test, how would I weigh/compare the relative non-idealness of A vs. C?

TIL drawing or visualizing venn diagrams is huge. B, C, and D can be immediately ruled out simply because we know we only get logical laws within the subset of retributive theories, and those three answer choices all incorrectly draw conclusions about the wrong subset (rehabilitative) or the superset (all theories).

Sometimes lawgic doesn't help. I tried honing in too hard on how to reconstruct this meta argument about arguments into an argument in lawgic and I just floundered for like 4 minutes. I was so zero'd in on the idea that "MBT must mean I use formal logic!" that I totally missed the actual structure of the argument. If I carefully read each sentence, I could see exactly how the 2nd sentence and the 3rd sentence combine to get me exactly what A says.

And that required me to just sit back a little, read slower, and get a better sense of the argument overall. Sometimes I get so honed in on the formal logic that I literally don't process the literal meaning of words/arguments (i.e. what does it mean to SOLVE a paradoxical arg? What is INTUITIVE?).

Since the negative of A ←s→ B is A→ /B, would it be accurate to also translate this as "all A are not B"?