Im innnnnnnn :)

I'm in!

/Palpatine emerg power pass--->Ads

Ads--->AAF

Conclusion: /Palpatine emerg power pass--->Ads--->AAF

Yes this argument would be valid.

Hello, "cannot" is considered a G4 conditional indicator.

Hi, so what confuses me is I was taught for sufficient conditions that the idea immediately following the logical indicator is the sufficient condition. For #4 "whenever" is the sufficient condition so the idea following it would be bacteria increases BUT you put mix.

Then for the second sentence of #4, the logical indicator is "must". What's following the logical indicator is plant material BUT you put know HC.

I'm so confused with this, I don't understand. Am I misunderstanding a rule or doing the steps for conditional indicators backwards?

#help

Your overthinking this. The wording doesn't matter. As long as you have the an understanding of what to do then your good. Example:

I love Cadillacs without blue wheels.

/Blue Wheels --->Love Cadillacs

/Love Cadillacs --->Blue Wheels

or

/BW--->LC

/LC--->BW

As long as you know what "BW and LC" means then the wording shouldn't matter to much.

Hope this helps!

I would love to join as well.

Stay positive and be persistent. We got this! Don't give up. Make a schedule and stick to it.

Loyola Law School here we come!

These are perfect assumptions that can be made. For this reason, this is a weak argument which could be false but could also be true. Whatever the question stem is asking will dictate what we need to look for.

Well when do you plan on taking the LSAT?

@rdhallan331 Hello, if possible may I receive it as well? Thank you so much!

I'm in LOL PEEP THE NAME!

I picked answer choice C however, I realize why it's wrong. The trick to getting this answer correct was realizing that the manager was aware of the delay and the word foreseeable correlates with foreseeable. Also, now that I think about it, POE helps with this question because the other answer choices are plain wrong for a variety of reasons.

Wow, I picked answer choice B and it's rather obvious why this wouldn't be the answer choice.

Hello, I'm sure you've gotten some pretty good responses however, I would like to chime in. I'm in the same exact boat as you. Here's the thing. Your studying way to much and from the sound of it, it sounds like your burning out and your going overboard. Take a step back and reevaluate yourself. I wouldn't study more than 4 hours / 5 days a week. Sure you can do more however, remember these words: "quality or quantity". Make a schedule and stick to do. Be sure to get some exercise in as well. I'm telling you, this takes time! If it makes you feel better, I took the Princeton review and fucking bombed meaning I did horrible on my first LSAT and now I'm on 7sage and doing it all over again. Stop being hard on yourself and learn to take breaks. We're not gods, but we're humans and we can only do so much each day before our brain say's "ok, no more. I need a break!". Feel free to message me if you'd like any advice.

SAME! Smh, I have to constantly remind myself to slow down and score more.

Wow, I shouldn't have missed this LOL! Weak sauce.

Yes this is true. If there is many than there is in fact some.

No, answer choice B MBT.

I got this question correct however, what messed me up was the sufficient condition "without". Can someone please do the conditional logic for the "without"?

#help

Wow, I feel that was an easy question I shouldn't have missed. I picked E however, had I read carefully I would of read that E is talking about other non profit groups as well. Answer choice A is the only answer choice that must be true based on the stimulus.

Everything you mentioned about what the host was doing is irrelevant. The host could be getting busy with another female mice however, the stimulus is still true. Remember, we need to take everything as true in the stimulus and push out a valid conclusion.

Well put, thank you for this!

Ok so if what your saying is "it’s the context, or understanding of the stimulus, that justifies the practice" to bridge a premise, then that's were I would say "that's common sense". The question is "how do we push out a premise?" The way you did it doesn't make any sense and you will IN FACT push how a wrong premise that isn't valid and won't allow the conclusion to be true. Everything JY did is 100% valid. You simply cannot have "A => D => B => C" because that would affect the context of an argument.

A--->B---->C

A--->C

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

BC

BC

BC

We can therefore conclude that A -s-> C.

Give me and example of what it is your trying to understand/prove.