Motivational videos of people studying for over a year are not motivating me lol. I would love to see some motivational videos of people doing it in 6 months or less, which seems more realistic to most people's lives and plans.

Seconding this! Also, I think many of us bought this membership with the idea that lessons would all have videos.

I didn't either and then I purchased the LawHub Advantage subscription and now I do.

What does the average number per LR mean?

#feedback Lack od videos and drills on this entire section really does not help with comprehension or information retention. We are paying for this resource to help us with the LSAT, and this choice to include no videos and no drills feels very counter-intuitive to that mission.

This video talks about alternative hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZfmzq69iM

#Feedback. I wish there were a lot more drills available.

That part!! We are getting free law school. Let's go!

Okay, I just watched the video and it concluded the same two conclusions I did. #Feedback, lesson answers should match the video explanation. If I hadn't watched the video, I would have left thinking there is only one valid conclusion. Also, the instructions very clearly say to draw "all" valid conclusions.

Wouldn't question 2 have two valid conclusions? I got both of the following as valid conclusions:

Hermes watches the Olympics.

Hermes likes to eat wasabi.

Can someone please explain why "Hermes watches the Olympics" is not a valid conclusions?

I agree that it was confusing in the explanation video when he stated that "in order to" indicates a sufficient condition. I would personally ignore that, and do the question as you would normally do it based on the lesson. Since "must" is in the sentence, we know that what comes next is the necessary condition. By that logic, what came first is sufficient.

Question. Isn't saying that the negation of irrationality being rational the same thing as confusing sufficient for necessary? I get that not irrational is wordy. But something could be not irrational and still not be rational? Or am I confusing this?

I did the same exact thing

I agree with you. I think it is both a premise and context. My reasoning for this is that without the “Even if we upgrade our IT infrastructure,” it is still an argument. So in that sense, it is context. But in the sense of the spectrum of support, the argument is much stronger, IMO, if we include “Even if we upgrade our IT infrastructure” as a premise.

Number 2 strikes me as having 2 premises and one conclusion. In terms of getting to the point, it feels like the argument is he is not guilty, and that him asking to police to investigate is a premise that supports the conclusion, rather than the conclusion. I broke it up like this.

If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate. Therefore, his asking the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty.

Premise: If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate.

Premise: Max asked the police to investigate

Conclusion: Max is not guilty

Can someone explain how Max asked the police to investigate is the conclusion?

I was thinking the same thing. That would be a wild alimony claim.

If you used the word "must" or "only" in front of come, that this would be valid, but as it reads, it is not. Socks come in red and blue. Awesome. But socks could also come in any other color can't they? You didn't say otherwise. A valid argument would be the following:

- Socks only come in red or blue.

- The sock is not red.

Conclusion: The sock must be blue.

I think the Disney one is the strongest because it tells you that there are only two ways to achieve what we know Walt has achieved, and it tells us he did not achieve it in one of the ways, so we are left with only one answer. This argument feels clean and completely sound.

I think the mammal one is fairly strong because the conclusion is that not "every" mammal is suitable to have as a pet, and the premise was able to show one example of a mammal that is dangerous. Because the word "every" is used, the threshold to prove/disprove is fairly low; we only have to prove that there is one mammal that is not suitable to be a pet for the conclusion to seemingly be supported. While this is a strong argument, I don't think it is perfectly strong because there is room for nuance. For example, we know tigers are aggressive and can cause injury, but we do not know, for instance, whether they can be domesticated. So, we have to conclude that this premise supports the conclusion, but it does not necessarily shut down alternative arguments.

The trashbin argument is very weak in my opinion. This argument requires us to see something which is circumstantially convenient, and accept it as sound. I do not think this is good logic and I do not think this type of reasoning would stand up in court. The argument wants us to believe since the bin was knocked down and salmon was in the bin and now knocked down with he rest of the trash contents, and since the cat is licking its paw, and since we know the cat licks its paw after eating, we know the cat deliberately knocked the bin down to eat the salmon. You lost me there. I would think this is a good argument if the conclusion is we know the cat ate the salmon. I think that is likely true given what we know, but what we know speaks very little if at all to the intentions of the cat, the capacity of the cat to make that decision, and our knowledge that the cat did it. I find this reasoning to be very problematic.