i got this right but with incorrect diagramming, sigh. but if it's helpful, in diagramming i just looked at which terms were already connected, and saw that knowledge of history, judgment, and moral themes could all form a chain (i just switched the order of history and judgement but got lucky and still came to the same answer), and then clear and unambiguous moral beliefs was tied to moral themes. clear and unambiguous was the outlier that wasn't connected to the full chain so i looked for an answer choice that connected it with knowledge of history or judgement (we already knew it was connected to moral beliefs which is why i didn't pick D.)

this whole section has been confusing me so much but this was the first time i felt i could take a step back and look at the big picture and simplify the question down to "which terms in the premises are connected, and let's see how we can connect the ones that aren't" and then search for an answer choice that identifies the outlier with a term that's already connected in the chain.

#help

what if the statement is "if government's want peace, they should adopt X policy"

does the word "should" not make it a conditional since that is significantly weaker than something like "....they will adopt X policy" or is it the same and do we diagram it as if "should" also means the same thing as an affirmative action to be taken?

Am i correct in that words like "all, every, etc" like we have learned in past conditional lessons, would make the intersecting sets become a conditional relationship? one of the differences with intersecting sets from subset/superset is that in the latter, all members of a group are within an umbrella of the necessary condition, not some of them, or most of them. So once it's only a bit of overlap, then we have to switch our perspective to the quantifier intersecting set language because it's explaining a different relationship in which there is non-guaranteed 100% overlap as there is in the conditional relationship. Is that right?

I'm confused on how this will help with answering questions? This seems like a complicated way of translating, when you could just simplify the sentence and find the same quick translation based on the previous lessons. I may not be fully grasping this particular lesson, but can someone explain why these three specific frameworks are helpful tools for answering questions?

helpful answer review!

sometimes i come across questions that i faintly recall doing on practice tests at the start of my lsat journey, and remember how they felt sooo hard but now i can't believe i'm getting them right!! this is one of them. this is just to say keep up the grind, it's so hard and can feel unrewarding but i promise you'll start to see the growth!!! we got this :)

i find myself getting confused by all the ways we can describe the sufficient/necessity flaw, and so I was really confused by the answer choices in this question even though I thought I anticipated correctly :( so I thought of another way to try and remember the relationship for this type of question (forgive me if someone has already said something similar in a previous lesson and I missed it!): Think of the sufficient like a brownie, and water as the necessary. The water is just one ingredient amongst several that work together to create the big picture (the brownie/sufficient condition). So if you have a brownie, you know for a fact that there is water there, but you CANNOT say that if you have water then that means I must be eating a brownie. Because there are other ingredients that could be important for putting together the brownie.

So for these questions, when I find myself anticipating "oh they just switched the conditions, but the answer choices are confusing me in how they describe it!" then it can be helpful to think "ok switching the conditions means they aren't considering how there could be other things (ingredients) NECESSARY for bringing about the same outcome" i.e. a brownie is NOT necessary for the presence of water

I hope this helps, and please correct me if I'm doing something wrong!