So I was trying to think of what the assumptions were before he explained them in the video. So I paused. For the second assumption, I came up with "we assume that the calculations would indicate that the legs would have broken etc."

But the correct assumption was that if the dino broke its legs while galloping, it would not have galloped. So obvious that I missed it.

Would my original assumptions still be a valid assumption related specifically to the "main point"

I failed to recognize the problem with this argument. Are there any tips that I can use to find the gap between the premises and the conclusion

If I said, "there are few to no other basketball players in the world that are better than me. " Can that be a necessary assumption.

Are most of the flaw questions in the lsat using casual logic?

I inferred that Main Street and Walnut were in the same location instead of assuming he was not a member. The first line in the stimulus was good enough for me to eliminate D.

I am not very comfortable on the reasoning why C is wrong. Because it says company and not pizza parlor? Even the right answer says company. Would love some more guidance, thanks. #feedback

I am worried as I transition to the RC section im gonna forget about a lot of my important habits and skills of LR. Is there any strategy that might help me stay on top of both. I am starting to think i should have progressed through both of them together. Rather than doing one after the other.

#feedback Is there any way i can drill WSE Causal

I would really like some help with this question. I actually got the question right initially and in my blind review I looked at B and though ok the 12 was not caused by OPV but most were actually caused by false reporting. In my blind review template I put that B is better than A because A is only talking about new cases but the second premise only talks about cases caused by administration of the vaccine. I feel like this logic is still stronger after doing the review.

Saldana said political debates always benefit the better candidate, so why wouldn't answer choice A be supported by her? How does it disregard other campaign related things?

What would the conclusion be if A was the right answer?

What does he mean by never attach the premise. Clearly he attacks the premise when he points out they are computer scientist not, hospital officials ?

#help

My problem with this explanation is we try to block the alternative hypothesis of abnormalities C→ Snoring, But even if abnormalities C→ Snoring it might still be the case that snoring can damage the throat. It doesn't prevent the hypothesis from being true. So why would I think of this argument in advance somehow?

For C isnt it a reasonable assumption that people will still eat food with the pill.

Im struggling to think of alternative conclusions ahead of time before going into the answer choices. I dont think it would be practical for me to take the time to think about another reason that people have PP based on genetic similarities. Even if i spent 15 minutes I dont think I would have guessed it was their nurture causing the phenomenon.

Is there some better approach I could learn?

#help

I struggle with this concept of knowledge vs facts. I chose answer choice C for this question and I think it is cause I don't understand how B Could Cause C. Is it just cause of the word extensive, meaning like only if there is too much? I would understand how that makes see wrong with the word "never." But the fact that there might be growth for societal demand for regulation dosent mean that there would be regulation? Right?

How do we warm up? as he recommends, just drill earlier test?

For 3 shouldnt is be at least 2? cause its some students not, like at least one student here, or am i nit picking

How do we know if the "whose" in #5 is inclusive or not. Like it could be sayingthat all the economies in westeros rely predominately on trade. Is it just cause there is no comma?

The kingdoms in Westeros, whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace.

OH I see ? in this case whose is referential ? but normally it just talking about some economies in westeros?

Is there a fair translation for #5

(PA -)HP) -) YKoffence

EXecpted by He dosent know

Unless we drive out the poachers, none of the pandas that relocated to this part of the forest will prosper.

So i felt the urge to translate the sentence in the following. Is this wrong?

DP-)PP and then kick up that we are only talking about the relocated pandas

DP = Drive out poachers, PP = pandas prosper,

I can see where I am wrong because then we are kicking out all poachers but only saving the relocated pandas. but I feel like I should be wrong for another reason

NYC → (/FT → PP)

NYC → (/PP → FT)

Next, we can pull the embedded sufficient condition out:

NYC and /FT → PP

NYC and /PP → FT

So pulling the embed out is just rephrasing the lawgic in anyway you see fit? as long as you dont violate any of the rules?

So i got this question right, I was able to go hunting after the stim, and boom B was right there easy. But then I started to affirm with process of elim, and when I came across D I was I used all my tools so say this is the wrong answer, beyond like this is obviously not the intention of the stim, But like it could be, I went to see how many claims in the stimulus supported the idea that conservationist should just give up. Besides like the obvious intention, the fact that they can only fight a limted amount of battles and even the prior line, about the cause of most modern extinictions also feel like they serve in support. Even the fact that edemic species are vulenerable stands in support. ultimately I settled that this is probly wrong casuse the other choice B is even more supported after spending 3 minutes on this question. I feel like I have failed in some regard, and I would like to know what i am doing wrong in my process

For some reason I am only getting the harder AP questions right

I am so confused by the part of the explanation that says we have no obligation to hand down to our children to cut down trees. @ 3mins and 30 second mark. I think im still unclear what exactly D is saying. If anyone could please help!