I just don't get weaken question oh my god.

@e.wimoine My thoughts are that I don't think that this stimulus is multi-layered with major/minor premises and conclusions. The conclusion is pretty direct at the beginning. The sentence that follows, "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly" is the premise. The last two sentences are just providing a more detailed explanation of that premise, expanding on each of the two topics offered as support to the conclusion ("comfort" and "ability to see the road clearly"). The last two sentences don't necessarily provide any new ideas that would prompt us to try and understand how they are inter-connected. So, I would just see it more as a detailed expansion/explanation of the premise. Would love to hear other thoughts as well!

@Kevin Lin I would maybe predict that the correct answer would make X a necessary condition of F (F --> X) ?

Not sure if this is correct, but I also watched your YT video on SA after doing this question, which was immensely helpful!

2/5 semi-timed but 5/5 BR aghhh

ik i shouldn't focus on timing this early but it feels daunting to not be able to do them unless I map out and spend 15 min on everything

@soleluna883 Basically, I'm trying to see if there's a way to simplify identifying start and end points in arguments that are conditional heavy, since this is what trips me up when I'm doing conditional/formal logic heavy arguments in timed conditions....

Can someone tell me if this line of reasoning/approach has any flaws or if we can use this in SA questions?

All the info seems like it's floating around, so we must capture the argument by identifying the start and end points (but at least the end point of the argument, since we are looking for the missing sufficient assumption). The conclusion helps give us the end point and, in this particular stimulus, the start point.

End point of the entire argument: "rule of law" because "if individual freedom --> rule of law"

In the supporting premises, we are given the idea that if individual freedom --> social integrity . Now we have established a common start point for the argument, but how do we get to the end point "rule of law"? We must somehow link "social integrity" to "rule of law," and we must be cognizant that the argument ends with the "rule of law", so this must be in the necessary condition.

Correct AC: "if social integrity, then rule of law" -- this gives the missing link. Wrong answer A flips this relationship, yet another reason we must clearly identify those start and end points.

For someone who has seen more patterns, is this an approach we can generally use for conditional/formal logic heavy questions? Are there any other patterns/tips anyone has identified for this?

#help #feedback

Can someone tell me if this line of reasoning/approach has any flaws or if we can use this in SA questions?

All the info seems like it's floating around, so we must capture the argument by identifying the start and end points (but at least the end point of the argument, since we are looking for the missing sufficient assumption). The conclusion helps give us the end point and, in this particular stimulus, the start point.

End point of the entire argument: "rule of law" because "if individual freedom --> rule of law"

In the supporting premises, we are given the idea that if individual freedom --> social integrity . Now we have established a common start point for the argument, but how do we get to the end point "rule of law"? We must somehow link "social integrity" to "rule of law," and we must be cognizant that the argument ends with the "rule of law", so this must be in the necessary condition.

Correct AC: "if social integrity, then rule of law" -- this gives the missing link. Wrong answer A flips this relationship, yet another reason we must clearly identify those start and end points.

For someone who has seen more patterns, is this an approach we can generally use for conditional/formal logic heavy questions? Are there any other patterns/tips anyone has identified for this?

#help #feedback

Can someone please clarify how JY knew that the 2nd part of the first premise would trigger the contrapositive? I see how it connects when I've written out the logic, but this would take too long on the test and want to know if theres a trick to see that quicker (for e.g. when you see something like "if and only if", you know its a bi-conditional).

Specifically referring to the part that says "is not truly a social process and only social processes....."

#help #feedback #instructor

@esheeler How much time do you put in daily/weekly to get to where you are now?

@CodyLevant Wondering this too. Great way of putting it!

"If the argument presents three facts supporting a conclusion, you could come up with a rule that places all three facts in the sufficient condition but you don't have to. A rule that uses a subset of those facts could also suffice to fully justify the conclusion."

Can someone help clarify this ^ (i.e. the SA application of conditional relationships)? So when we see a conditional relationship in the premises of SA questions, we are only concerned with what facts/phenomena "trigger" (sufficient) the relationship and making sure that it's going in the right direction (like not starting with the necessary)? Do we assume that most facts, listed in the way that they are in this question, would fall in the sufficient to support the hypothesis?

I want to clarify what I can count as the sufficient conditions, like which facts I can more logically kick up into the domain, when they appear as facts/phenomena and not in obvious conditionals.

#help #feedback

#help Doesn't C also lead to the wrong direction (aesthetic pleasure) when we actually need it to lead to value?

Guys I highly recommend reading this instead of watching the passage!! It forces your brain to do the understanding/work. I refer to the vids only when my brain is really burned out or when I need to try and reinforce the lesson

Isn't this actually an MSS question? I used the MSS approach to get to the right answer. I know the structure is P-H but what would make this different?

this as a q1 would take me outtttt

yassss (1 star)

@Premiseprincess Have these gotten any better for you? I'm still going thru the CC but this is taking me outttt

Why is B not correct? I'm having a hard time seeing why it would be false/unsupported

Wow, I got this wrong 3x what's going on!!

@emmalemon Which one specifically?

@Senator94 I would love to join this as well if it happens! thanks for sharing all these tips, this has definitely been the most helpful perspective

How is the approach for this similar to the previous question about preserving medicine in rainforests, besides the "set" framework (which isn't really helping me)? I want to connect the two because intuitively I feel like there's a similarity in approach, but these questions just haven't fully clicked for me yet. If anyone has grasped the patterns, please #help

@rengoku Right, this is also how I distinguished between B and C. B assumes the universe to be the main subject of age, but what we are given in the premises concern the stars, so it doesn't make sense to flip the main topic of the premises around. There may be a more logically precise way to think of this, but the big-picture helps me understand it better and makes LSAT thinking more intuitive sometimes

@legallyhaya It's really odd and the more I do it, the more I realize how unintuitive it can be to find these relationships. But you just kind of have to force it, knowing that there is some sort of relationship between the clauses, as different as they sound. Sometimes, specific wording matters more and sometimes it's the broader topics in the stimulus. I got this question correct by forcing that relationship between the brightness of the stars with their age or the age of the universe. I second-guessed this relationship/line-of-thinking during BR though, so it's definitely a learning process.

@ErickaGarza121495 I generally love working in cafes but have heard that you shouldn't do LSAT studying in these settings. Can anyone add their perspective? Maybe going through the curriculum or reviews is fine but not drills?