Just got 5/5 for the first time!

Guys, if you’ve seen my previous comments, you know I hadn’t gotten a single Sufficient Assumption (SA) question right until now. This just goes to show that you can’t get discouraged. You have to push through, embrace the mistakes, and learn from them—100 wrong answers can lead you to that moment of getting everything right. Keep going!

P.S Shout out to @silviasunshine22 for her words of encouragement earlier <3

Guys i wanna die. I wasn't able to get a single SA Q. right.

Method of reasoning: Coming to a conclusion based on past events.

Hi there!

I completely understand the challenge of juggling everything while trying to prep for the LSAT. While full-length practice tests are important, there are other strategies you can use to improve without dedicating hours at a time. Here are a few suggestions:

1. Targeted Drills: Focus on specific question types or sections you’re struggling with. This will help you improve in those areas without the time commitment of a full test.

2. Timed Sections: Instead of taking full-length tests, try doing individual timed sections. This keeps you in practice with timing while also fitting more easily into a busy schedule.

3. LSAT Videos/Explanations: If you’re commuting or have downtime, LSAT explanation videos can be a great way to passively learn and reinforce strategies.

4. Daily Practice: Even setting aside 30-60 minutes daily for practice or review can go a long way in building up your skills over time.

5. Review & Analyze: Spend time reviewing the questions you got wrong in past practice tests. Understanding why you made certain mistakes is often more valuable than doing more tests.

Good luck with your prep—you’ve got this!

• Main Point (MP) questions: You need to find the main conclusion of the argument.

• Most Strongly Supported (MSS) questions: Sometimes, these are like MP questions, but the conclusion is hidden in the answer choices. MSS also test how well a set of claims supports another set of claims.

• Support can range from full support (a restatement) to strong implications, to unsupported (neutral), to anti-supported (likely false), to completely false (contradicts the information).

• Point at Issue (Agree/Disagree): You find either a point of agreement or disagreement between two speakers. Most questions focus on disagreements, where one speaker supports a statement, and the other opposes it.

• Inference and Must Be True (MBT): These questions are like MSS but require the answer to be so well-supported that it must be true. These often use formal logic (rules about sets, causation, etc.).

• Resolve, Reconcile, and Explain (RRE): These questions present a puzzling situation, and you must find an answer that explains it, usually with causal logic (cause-and-effect).

• Weaken, Strengthen, and Evaluate (WSE): These questions also use causal reasoning. You weaken or strengthen arguments by introducing or ruling out alternative explanations or evidence. They also sometimes use cost-benefit analysis, analogy, or rules.

• Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption (PSA) questions: These involve applying rules to reasoning, which we are about to explore.

Shrimps having sex with their cousins is wild (I'm from Alabama)

Let me help you all out.

Terry implies - A consumer should attribute dishonesty to a corp when the action of the corp is not explained by incompetence. (That's literally what happened)

Ans A says: A consumer should NOT attribute dishonesty to a corp when the action of the corp is explained by incompetence

That's the exact opposite of what Terry implied and contradicts what Terry says so A must be false. Remember MBF answers HAVE TO CONTRADICT PASSAGE. The rest of the answers are usually silent on the matter

What happened to all the conditional indicators we learned? There's No (Group 4) and unless (Group 3). How do we put it into lawgic?

I'm sorry about the language but it helped me, maybe it'll help you.

Jordan : Either was we're fucked

Terry: If we do one of them the other won't be fucked.

/Support > /Allow (/A > /B)

The second sentence reads : Allow > Support (B > A)

Don't go looking for answers if you don't know what you're looking for. If you don't panic and actually map it on paper, it will be much quicker and you'll always get it right.

P.S. Practice translating quickly!

For q. 7 and all other comparative claims, this is how i broke it down:

Comparative Claim : Experienced vs Inexperienced

Original Claim meaning: Experienced workers take lesser or equal time to complete a task when compared to inexperienced workers.

Controposive: No it's not the case that the time required to complete a task is not longer for experienced workers than it is for inexperienced workers.

one can be an experienced worker and not be able to complete the task in lesser or equal time to inexperienced workers, they may take more time than inexperienced workers.

or being an experienced worker does not mean they are be able to complete the task in lesser or equal time to inexperienced workers, they may take more time than inexperienced workers.

Question. 14

The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.

Symbol: Funding Curtailed > LC discourage

Lawgic: LC Discourage > Funding curtailed (The Only introduces necessary condition - Group 2)

English: If large corporations have made research projects a point of discourage then those research projects have gov funding that has been severely curtailed

This is what I got. Can someone please tell me?

I'm thinking of it like this: A study is conducted.

What's the study? - The amount of screen time different countries get for Western shows.

Whats the Study going to show? - How much time each country gets in comparison to each other.

A similar example : A study is conducted to see how long it takes different dog breeds to finish their meals

Whats the study going to show? - How long it takes these different dog breeds to finish their meals in comparison.

I hope I made sense, Maybe Kevin could chip in.

1. Cogent:

• Meaning: A clear, logical, and convincing argument.

• Example: A cogent argument is one that persuades the audience with clarity and rationality.

2. Sound:

• Meaning: An argument is sound if it is both valid (logically structured) and has true premises.

• Example: A sound argument guarantees that its conclusion is true.

3. Valid:

• Meaning: An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of the truth of the premises.

• Example: If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true in a valid argument.

4. Strong:

• Meaning: A strong argument is inductive, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

• Example: A strong argument increases the likelihood of the conclusion being true but does not guarantee it.

5. Inductive:

• Meaning: An argument where the premises provide probable support for the conclusion.

• Example: “Every swan I’ve seen is white, so all swans are probably white.”

6. Deductive:

• Meaning: An argument where the premises guarantee the conclusion if they are true.

• Example: “All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”

7. Syllogism:

• Meaning: A form of deductive reasoning with two premises leading to a conclusion.

• Example: “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.”

8. Fallacy:

• Meaning: A flaw or error in reasoning.

• Example: A common fallacy is ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the argument.

9. Premise:

• Meaning: A statement or proposition from which a conclusion is drawn.

• Example: “All humans need water” is a premise leading to conclusions about human survival.

10. Conclusion:

• Meaning: The statement that logically follows from the premises in an argument.

• Example: From the premises “All humans need water” and “I am a human,” the conclusion is “I need water.”

11. Inference:

• Meaning: The process of deriving a conclusion based on evidence or premises.

• Example: If it’s cloudy, you might infer it’s going to rain.

12. Necessary Condition:

• Meaning: A condition that must be true for the conclusion to hold.

• Example: Oxygen is a necessary condition for fire.

13. Sufficient Condition:

• Meaning: A condition that guarantees the outcome.

• Example: Studying is a sufficient condition for passing a test (but not the only way to pass).

14. Refutation:

• Meaning: A counterargument or disproof of a statement or theory.

• Example: Pointing out contradictions in an opponent’s argument is a form of refutation.

15. Contradiction:

• Meaning: A situation in which two or more statements are logically incompatible.

• Example: Saying “The sky is blue” and “The sky is not blue” at the same time is a contradiction.

16. Tautology:

• Meaning: A statement that is true in every possible interpretation, often considered logically redundant.

• Example: “It will either rain tomorrow, or it won’t.”

17. Contrapositive:

• Meaning: The inverse of an implication statement where both the condition and result are negated.

• Example: The contrapositive of “If it rains, then I will stay home” is “If I do not stay home, then it did not rain.”

18. Biconditional:

• Meaning: A statement where both conditions imply each other (if and only if).

• Example: “You can have dessert if and only if you finish your dinner.”

19. Modus Ponens:

• Meaning: A logical rule stating that if “If A, then B” is true, and A is true, then B must also be true.

• Example: “If it rains, the ground will be wet. It is raining. Therefore, the ground is wet.”

20. Modus Tollens:

• Meaning: A rule of logic where if “If A, then B” is true, and B is false, then A must also be false.

• Example: “If it rains, the ground will be wet. The ground is not wet. Therefore, it did not rain.”

21. Dilemma:

• Meaning: A situation where two unfavorable options are presented, and you must choose one.

• Example: “Either I fail the exam, or I spend all night studying without sleep.”

22. Exclusive Disjunction (XOR):

• Meaning: A logical operator where one or the other condition is true, but not both.

• Example: “Either it will rain, or it will be sunny, but not both.”

23. Conjunction:

• Meaning: A compound statement formed by combining two statements with “and,” which is only true if both components are true.

• Example: “It is raining and it is cold” is only true if both conditions hold.

24. Disjunction:

• Meaning: A compound statement formed by combining two statements with “or.” It is true if at least one statement is true.

• Example: “It is raining or it is cold” is true if either condition is true.

25. Necessary and Sufficient Condition:

• Meaning: A necessary condition is something that must be true for an event to happen, while a sufficient condition guarantees the event.

• Example: Having a key is a necessary condition to open a door, while having a valid key and turning it in the lock is a sufficient condition to open it.

26. Inference:

• Meaning: A conclusion reached based on evidence and reasoning.

• Example: “The grass is wet, so it probably rained.”

27. Reductio ad Absurdum:

• Meaning: A form of argument where a proposition is disproved by showing that it leads to absurd or contradictory conclusions.

• Example: Arguing that if everyone ignored laws, chaos would ensue, proving the necessity of legal systems.

28. Quantifier:

• Meaning: Words like “all,” “some,” and “none” used in logical statements to indicate the extent of generalization.

• Example: “All cats are animals” vs. “Some cats are black.”

29. Non Sequitur:

• Meaning: A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

• Example: “She drives a BMW, so she must be rich” (wealth does not necessarily follow from owning a BMW).

30. Equivocation:

• Meaning: A fallacy where a word is used in two different senses in an argument, leading to a false conclusion.

• Example: “The sign said ‘fine for parking here,’ so I thought it was okay to park” (confusing “fine” as in penalty with “fine” as in acceptable).