Can you please add the question numbers / prep test / identifying info for drills?

@MJ question types under the cheat sheet https://7sage.com/lsat-resources/lr-question-types/AP https://7sage.com/lessons/logical-reasoning/introduction-to-logical-reasoning/logical-reasoning-cheat-sheet

@Katty facts

Doesn't the columnist's argument, in trying to deny the reasoning presented, constitute an attempt to explain said phenomenon?

Now I get this!

I still get this. Buttons do not work :(

I have to take my scheduled preptest I'm just going to lawhub

I'm trying to take a practice test right now. this is super frustrating

but it says predators ate the pellets no matter which one was present. that implies that they ate all of them

All plants need water. That's an assumption that everyone should be allowed to make. So why isn't E correct?

I got this correct, but man was this hard to comprehend! The amount of negatives present was really hard to digest. Is there a hack or method other than help digest sentences with so many negatives? 

@JamesP.Harrison I interpreted C the same way and I don't understand why this is incorrec

huh

does the wording "being intelligent does not imply that one is wise" meaning that if one is intellegint, one cannot be wise?"

I got

Decrease cost --> More CLD + congestion decrease --> Profits increase

and I still got the correct answer. Is this another way to map this out correctly?

up until now i've treated embeddedd conditionals as one entity

so , A --> C in place of A --> (B --> C). It's worked for me.

Why is it important to break it down even more?

framework 1 seems to be the same as framework 3

Translating this into lawgic, I got:

/T --> /PD and Rev --> H --> T

contra

/T --> /H --> /Rev or PD --> T

Using this, I got the correct answer. But there's no way this logic is correct. What did I do wrong to get to this spot?

Oh, the sentences are short, they might be easy!

...

*sees a 38 min explainer video

Question 3

We have (2) indicators. A group 4 indicator ("No one") and a group 3 indicator ("Unless").

Why are we ignoring "no one"? Shoulden't we negate the necessary condition?

For example

No one can [venture into Mordor] unless [they are brave]

(1) If I follow the rule for group 4 indicators, then I have V --> /B or /V --> B

Then, using the rule for group 3 indicators, I will get /V --> /B or B --> V or V --> B or /B --> /V

How am I supposed to know which indicators to follow when analyzing a conditional with more than one group of indicators?

@Kevin_Lin

I mapped mine out like this

(A) ABS --> (B) Common --> (C) Advantages

A --> B --> C

Contrapositive /C --> /B --> /A

Why is that wrong?