There actually is at least 1 live commentary done digitally somewhere in this curriculum or the old one I think. I wrote the lsat some months ago and used that for reference as I studied. Unless they got rid of it, you should be able to find it. I would find a section or search for all the live commentaries and see which ones are digital. He used the 7Sage platform for it too.

I believe there’s a lesson focused on exactly that somewhere in the foundations portion. It’s quite literally called something like “kick it up into the domain”. I can’t remember which big topic it’s under, but it’s in the same-ish area that also talks about bi-conditionals so if you go there I think you should find it. Not sure if it’s a video since some lessons don’t have videos yet, but there’s at least some text there where it’s fully explained. Hope that helps!

Hi, what you've said sounds correct to me. I just wanted to point out that I think the contrapositive would be /CF-> /J or /S, and not /J and /S -> /CF.

This is covered in JY's videos/text on de Morgan's law or someplace else I believe. It's because if the Chancellor's plan did not fail (ie failing the necessary condition) then you know for a fact that at least 1 of the two components in the sufficient (J or S) must've failed (as the sufficient was triggered to fail). I think it could also be that both failed, but at least 1 did.

The rest you said sounds good, I just thought I saw a misconception and would've appreciated it if someone corrected me if they thought I made a mistake. Feel free to ask someone else if what I said is correct or not. Hope that helps!

Exactly. I think "can be attributed to" does indicate a cause, in this case they're concluding that x phenomenon (ie the higher obesity rates) happened because of the diet and exercise habits. It's an argument saying x was caused by y where the cause is in the conclusion sentence.

I think he made the "tigers are mammals" statement false by adding the sentence "tigers are not mammals". When he's talking about the assumption, he's referring to the fact that tigers are (in fact) classified as mammals in our world, hence that statement is true. But when he adds the sentence that says they're not, he's talking about a hypothetical world in which we suppose that tigers aren't mammals. If you picture the same argument in that world, it falls apart. Hence the assumption "being made false" weakened the argument.

I think for the aggressiveness portion you are correct. The argument assumes that aggressiveness and being able to cause harm to humans makes animals unsuitable to have as pets. But if you, again, thought of a world where that was actually desirable criteria, then the argument would fall apart. Hence, the argument has the original/true criteria as an assumption that adds to the argument.

Hope that helps!

Yes necessary is already understood-it essentially allows the argument to still exist but doesn’t really strengthen it. It’s degree of strengthening is like if you think of the number 0 vs the number 0.000001…the second number is so close to 0 that we might as well consider it to be 0 for the purpose of working with it. I think that’s what JY means by the NA supporting it barely but how we should think of it as not supporting. Everything else you said makes sense also

😔😔😔

I think it’s certainly good to stay with what the passage says and only look at that, however you can’t ignore the fact that the passage also makes assumptions that aren’t stated but it’s obvious the passage relies on them. JY’s example also uses that, another assumption would probably be that “my body is capable of doing the things I need to play basketball, like having arms or legs that work”. The passage doesn’t stated that either, but if we’re asked about a necessary assumption it’d be stupid to not choose that if its offered as an option-you’d get the question wrong! So yes, stay with what the passage says but it’s hard to also state every single assumption that goes into the argument and hence its useful to identify them too. I guess it’s a balance lol

So basically for the hard questions they could be describing something that does happen in the argument (like an assumption) BUT that AC is wrong if it doesn't spefically describe the flaw...

lol yes similar to the jedi and force users example, even though ive never seen star wars haha

I think with this question, I struggled with A since I guessed it first but then B and C also seemed compelling. I couldn't tell which one you'd know would be true but then JY shows that you can know for sure that A is true through lawgic but B and C may/may not be true and so they're not the "must be true" answer

This is a late response but you really should attempt it during the test otherwise it won't go into your score lol. I would skip the question for that particular section if you can and come back to it in the end but still if you don't have that time at the end its best to guess it, circle/mark it and then come back whenever you have the time/chance to give it your best try. They'll only score for your correct out of total and make your scaled score, so if you guess you at least have a 20% chance of getting it right than 0. That's at least better than leaving it blank