So, there is a format to how to effectively annotate essays. If this were a phenomenon hypothesis style essay, you would annotate it as P1 phenomenon, P2 hypothesis, P3 experimental evidence, etc. And for debate style essays you would do something like P1 Intro to debate, viewpoint 1, P2 viewpoint 2, P3 author's viewpoint etc.

Wow, these such useful lessons are coming a week before my LSAT nice. Lucky me.

C works by removing air conditioner from being closely associated with architectural change mentioned in the premise. E works by providing an alternative cause for the architectural change. Asking me to say which one is better seems as reasonable as saying which alleviates cramps better, massage or stretching. I'm glad you see the difference, could you explain it to me? To me saying that it is more relevant is like saying massaging works closer with the muscle thus is better.

I think I might have been too hasty in concluding that the sufficient portion of a conditional statement can always be kicked into the domain, so that the true conclusion is the necessary portion. After doing several practice tests, I've seen a few conclusion questions in which the entirety of the conditional conclusion, both sufficient and necessary portion, must be included to be correct.

I think the real reason in this question the sufficient portion can be kicked into the domain is that the sufficient piece is actually both sufficient and necessary. If you think about it, to be able to detect alien life, one requires that they exist. Since it is a ↔ relationship, mentioning the necessary piece is equivalent to mentioning the sufficient piece, so it's redundant to say both.

I guess my problem was I just don't know what false believes were. I thought it meant you tell yourself you believe it, but you don't really believe it.

Don't quote me on this because I have no background in logic, but this is how I understood it.

For A→(/B→C) which translate to A→(B or C)

If A is activated, then the possibilities are (B, /C) (/B, C), or (B, C). So, to navigate among all the possibilities you can make up lawgic rules. You can say /C→B, and /B→C. Obviously B and C can both be true but the lawgic of /C→B doesn't preclude that, so everything still works.

For A→(B and C)

If A is activated then the only possibility is (B, C).

Since there is no other possibilities to navigate, I don't think it's even sensible to say B→C so /C→/B, because it could never be possible for /C to occur given that A is true. In other words B and C don't have any conditional relationship with one another.

If A is activated, then both B and C must be true, so in my opinion, forcing it into lawgic format makes as much sense as asking what is north of the north pole.

No, I can't, because I don't remember specific questions, or which tests they come from, and I don't have the patience to look for them. But I can tell you from experience that out of the almost a dozen practice tests I have done so far, I recall seeing nested conditionals in MSS or MBT questions on 2 or 3 occasions, and it tremendously helped to know that A → (B→C) is (A and B) → C. Seriously, how would you even begin to understand the lawgic of "If blah blah blah then blah blah blah unless blah blah blah" without this lesson?

I don't remember learning this from The Loophole, which was an LSAT prep book I read prior to getting a 7sage account. I always wondered how you were supposed to deal with nested conditionals. Truth tables? Order of operations? Left to right? (I have no background in logic you see, never learned it in college). That's why I wanted to give a shoutout to this lesson, which was excellent IMO.

This lesson is honestly the key for getting level 5 curve breaker MBT inference questions right.

It doesn't deny a change. It says the change did occur but perhaps not due to AC.

Did you think it said, "blah blah blah was prevalent even before AC was introduced"? Haha, that's what happened to me too and I crossed off C because of it.

#feedback I dislike your explanation for why E is wrong for the following reason.

The thing about insulation is that it not only keeps heat in, but it also keeps heat out. In a perfectly insulated room, it could be 200 degrees outside, yet it will still be room temperature inside. This is how the space shuttle can survive reentry. Knowing this, E provides a plausible alternative explanation to the conclusion of "it was AC that changed architectural preference", thus weakening it. Coming from an Asian family, we never turned on the AC for this reason. Just close your windows until the sun goes down.

So obviously I was debating between C and E and ended up being unlucky.

The trickiest part about question 12 is reading the question right. I read it as "both authors would disagree with one another about ..." I recall thinking they would both disagree with E and crossed it off.

Thank god for process of elimination. Until the explanation, I have no idea why E is correct, but I could articulate why the other answers were wrong.

OMG, didn't even occur to me that you could just fire the other guys, which was why E made no sense to me. AAAUUUGH. What if you are just not smart enough to think of the correct logic? Are you just screwed?

This happens to me too! Here is what I tell myself. To get an answer truly correct I must articulate why the answer is right and why all the other answers are wrong, so in a way, I have two methods of getting it right. First is to find the right answer. Second is to eliminate all the wrong answers. If I fail either one, I deserved to get the question wrong. So, if I got it right through "not second guessing myself", I still deserved to get it wrong except I got lucky, which proves nothing.

As you know the LSAT often have attractive wrong answers. It often is our job to succeed in explaining why an answer is wrong. For example, just recently, I got PT86, section 1, question 22 wrong when I was debating between two answers. I saw that both C and D are pointing to the same issue I had in my mind, but I failed to notice that the wording "cannot be restored" was too strong. My provability detector was off, and this question showed me that it needed calibration. Had I stuck with D, what would it have proven? Should I pat myself on the back for being lucky? All I would be doing is to trick myself into thinking I am smarter than I actually am. I still wouldn't have known "cannot be restored" was definitely wrong for being unprovable in a MSS (aka most provable) question.

This topic demonstrates the positive, negative, false positive, false negative concept (which I don't remember the name of). If you are in a situation where you are not good enough to know why a wrong answer is wrong, then you should be glad that the test gave you a positive result by flagging the question to your attention. Think of how many false negatives you got where you equally didn't master the proper foundation, yet you got it right through luck. In my opinion the second situation is much worst considering you're not even aware you got it wrong.

Sorry for the wall of text. TLDR: If you are second guessing yourself, then as Kenshiro from Fist of the North Star meme would say "Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru" which translate to something like "you already got the LSAT question wrong and need to work on the associated basics".

I'm surprised that this was a 180 question. I thought some other questions on this test was much harder. I think this is one of those rare cases that if you're too dependent on mapping out the lawgic, you would miss the forest for the trees.

When I read this question, I translated it as two people making claims yet one or both must be wrong. Problem with the conclusion was it automatically sided with one person over the other. And, in A they auto sided with Morgan rather than the news, which was the same mistake. I solidified my choice when I noticed no other answers was even close to my translation.

Also, anyone else notice that parallel reasoning questions are almost always exact carbon copies of stimulus in terms of structure, yet parallel flaw is not so picky on structure? I think if you go looking for structure parallel in parallel flaw questions, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I found it. It was under the question number.

Is there a list somewhere of all the types of reasoning? When he asks what type of reasoning is this, I just thought "the one where you understand the logic behind basic statistics and sampling?" Am I supposed to know the names of each type of reasoning for each question?

I have yet to see a single parallel question where the answer isn't parallel down to the letter to the stimulus. When I read E, I noticed that it wasn't three sentences, so E was eliminated.

I choose A as I was reading the answers, but once I got to E, I had to switch. It's just not comparable. E is leagues above A in quality.

His videos always seem very short to me, but maybe it's because I'm watching in 2.6x speed. Maybe it'll help you.

Same, I was thinking about size of small studies vs large before I even read the answers. Divine intervention for the win. I just think that I can't rely on it since I can't guarantee that such spark of intuition will happen on the real test.

Below is how I understood it.

I think this is one of those cases where set logic and causal logic causes confusion. You probably are trying to force a set logic idea into causal logic.

Let's take this example: Most children are born because their parents wanted to start families. Due to the word "most" I know this is set logic meaning that most of "children born" set is inside another set of "parents wanting to start families" Think of a Venn diagram where most of a circle of children born is inside of another circle of parents wanting families.

children born ‑m→ parents wanting family

You are instead trying to use causal logic based on the word "because". So I would imagine you tried to write something like this. Parents wanting family causes children to be born.

parents wanting family → children to be born

In which case you left out the word most. If you wanted it to include most then it would be this.

parents wanting family ‑m→ children to be born.

I hope you see this is not what the original sentence was saying. The translation of this lawgic is "Most of the parents who wanted to start families have children" which is a completely different sentence from the original in meaning.

If I am just fooling myself into understanding something I don't, then please let me know.

"I feel like it's my birthday" lol. You are a riot.