+1

Thanks for this video. If I've been out of school for four years, would one academic reference be sufficient? Or would you still suggest getting two academic references?

Thanks, Kevin -- that was a miss on my end. For some reason I was trying to replace the conclusion in the stimulus with one of the answer choices, but you are absolutely correct, there is no question where we are to replace a part of the stimulus.

The way you explained how to think about the question now resonates and I will be sure to not make this mistake come test day.

In a "weaker" question such as this, are we not supposed to replace the conclusion in the stimulus with a conclusion from the answer choice? If this is the case, diatoms were only mentioned in the conclusion and we would be replacing the the conclusion. So how do we know that answer choice (D) is correct if we're supposed to essentially ignore the existing conclusion? Perhaps ignore is the wrong word here but would appreciate any guidance.

Appreciate the response. Thank you.

Kevin, as I'm studying, I'm trying to look for patterns to help me on test day. Like in this question, I've noticed that the majority (three out of the five) answer choices start with "the decision should...". If there are repeat instances in which an answer choice starts off, is it clever to hone in on the majority aka (C), (D), and (E) here?

Or, is this recognized pattern unfounded, meaning that I should not automatically rule out any answer choices.

Kevin is the man

#feedback would be helpful to have "previous" and "next" lesson tabs at the top of each lesson page in addition to below the lesson summary

Thank you.

For this question type when we are resolving the discrepancy or other types of RREs, where do we draw the line between bringing in outside assumptions vs relying on the world of the stimulus? Are we only allowed to bring in five assumptions (aka the five answer choices)?

I get why (B) is right; I chose (A) because the assumption did make sense as other items could hog the electrical grid. Also, the passage didn't say air conditioning was the only strain on the electrical grid. So the causal relationship wasn't that strong imo. Anyways, would appreciate clarity on the point about bringing in assumptions. Thanks.

Will the right answer always explicitly include the same subject in both statements? For example, "voters" was mentioned by both Tanner and Saldana giving us a nice indicator here.

What do you mean by "the sufficient condition should trigger the necessary condition for a valid argument"?

Thank you fbotello91

Is it fair to say that questions in the form of "most accurately represents" is another way of saying find the conclusion

Would appreciate if others could share best practices/approaches to note-taking when writing the test virtually. I believe six pages are allowed; how do you optimize for those six pages? Also, I haven't used LSAC just yet - is there a way to take notes on the test platform itself?

I know I'm thinking about this backwards because this doesn't fit JY's logic but perhaps you can help me understand. If we've established that Garfield is a cat, isn't it then NECESSARY for that cat to be a mammal? How is being a cat sufficient to being a mammal? This is me thinking bottoms-up instead of top-down because that's how my mind works -- I go straight to the dot and try to rationalize/interpret.

I get the lawgic, but we’re told that Kumar is 17 minutes late, so I’m still unclear

If we’re saying Elias is late, why can’t we say that Kumar is late?

Assessing the size of the cat makes sense because we know the cat was in fact there. I think where smithbaiad's confusion lies (and mine as well) is why we are assuming the cat is the only pet in the house. Are we not assessing the validity of the information presented in the text? Otherwise, there are so many scenarios that could be "assumed", and that's not our focus here on the LSAT.

I get that some assumptions are more reasonable than others based on the likelihood of being true, but I thought we are not supposed to bring our "outside knowledge" into these passages?