Basically my thoughts are that if you had premises that support a conclusion, that conclusion can support another, greater conclusion. These conclusions are AKA major premise, sub-conclusion, or intermediate conclusion.

Premise: All F-18 pilots fly fighter planes.

Premise: Prem flies F-18s.

Sub-Conclusion: Prem is a pilot that flies fighter planes.

Premise: All pilots that fly fighter planes are adreneline junkies.

Conclusion: Prem is an adreneline junkie.

I got #2 wrong. Remember, it supposed to be the author's argument, not the scientists. The author is trying to persuade you of something whether their argument is weak, strong or does not have a conclusion.

*"The trash bin in the kitchen is toppled and its contents, including some leftover salmon from dinner, spilled."

Anyone or anything, even an earthquake, could've toppled the trash can.

"Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter, self-satisfied, licking his paw to clean his face the way he does after having eaten."

Cats are known to lick their paws. Does he always do it after he eats? What other times does he do it?

"My hypothesis is that Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party, having intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within."

Weak argument because of so many assumptions that could be true of false.

Hunting for the Main Conclusion (MC) or Main Point (MP) is key to answering the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT.

Context sets up premisis which leads to Main Conclusions.

Be careful. There could be major sub-points and sub-conclusions but they are not the main conclusion.

Read the questions stem first then the answer choices. Then read the stimulus. Identify the context (support), premises (building to MC) and the Conclusion. Likely the Conclusion will refer to other parts of the argument.

Then use process of elimination for the answers and move on.

Also, where are the videos?

The author write the passage or STIMULUS to you persuading you of their argument. Think of them as speaking to you.

The question aka QUESTION STEM is a question which points to a direction for you to pick the right answer choice.

A relationship is an abstract idea that exisits between 2 or more relata. The LSAT is full of relationships.

LSAT = Relata 1?

Full of relationships = Relata 2?

Words have precise definitions. Always speak and write with precision. By speaking and writing with precision, you will have an ordered and consistent mind.

Modifiers cut into subjects. Think of modifiers as subsets (categories) of subjects.

Some swords sharpened by magicians cut through steel.

Some (modifier) swords (subject) sharpened by magicians (modifier) cut (verb) through steel (object).

I hit Pete.

I = Noun = Subject

Hit = Verb

Pete = Object = Noun

Hit Pete = Predicate.

Not all assumptions are created equal. Some assumptions are less equal than others. The more reasonable an assumption is, it's less vulnerable to attack. The less reasonable an assumption is, the greater the opportunity to attack it.

Evaluate assumptions based on their reasonableness. Identify the weakest assumption and attack that. Conversely, make sure all your assumptions have a high degree of reasonableness.

Assumptions are missing link between premises and conclusion.

The stronger an argument is, the fewer and more reasonable are the assumptions. The weaker an argument is, the more and less reasonable its assumptions.

Assumptions can be promoted to premisis to make an argument stronger in order to head off a counter-argument.

If an assumption is made true, they strenthen the argument. If made false, they weaken the argument.

Assumptions are the weak points in any argument and vulnerable to criticism. Attack assumptions in an opponent's argument AKA attack their "unsaid premises".

The strength of an argument derives from the probability that the premises increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true. On one side of the spectrum the premises give very strong support that the conclusion is true. Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum the premises gives very weak support that the conclusion is true. Most questions on the LSAT fall between these 2 extremities.

Some peope say and table setting are 2 types of contexts. SPS spells out a position. Table setting give background info.

However, but and yet are indicator words to signal the start of an argument that is the author is trying to persuade you of.

Context does not give or receive support from any other part of the argument and can be temporarily discarded for identification.

Context is distinct and separate from the argument but is crucial to your understanding of it.

Context gives a background info on but not related to the argument and is crucial to understanding the argument. However, it is not a part of the author's argument.

There are 2 types of contexts: 1) Table Setting and 2) Other peoples' argument.

You may feel in love with Casablanca but I heard from former CIA officers that it is crawling with spies. However, once I did my own research on the city, it has less spies than any other major city in the world. The reason for this is because of Casablanca's relatively small population and WW2, which was the event that increased the amount of spies, is over.