I like this analogy! but I feel like it's missing a key element when specifically talking about LSAT arguments. Like in JY's example, there is a huge HUGE "leap" or "hole" or "missing element" in the argument. (I mean, it went from I play basketball to I am the best baller in the world). So--in my opinion which I will try to justify--the S.A. would not simply be glitter to that argument. It would be the last needed missing card of that card tower that would pretty much complete the argument/card tower. A S.A. that I won 5 NBA Championships, been selected as an all-star 17 times, and voted by all NBA coaches as one of the best shooting guards wouldn't be glitter to the object, it would almost complete and guarantee the conclusion of the argument.

I would say it more like:

SA is a card on top of the card tower.

NA are the cards at the bottom of the tower.

For SA, you don't necessarily(hah!) need the cards on top of the tower for it to be built, but it would make it more complete and stronger(sort of).

For NA, you need the cards at the bottom. You need to be alive to be the best basketball player. Because without the cards at the bottom, the tower would fall. If you were to omit/negate/take out a card--the whole thing would fall.

If you take out the glue that holds the glitter to the object, then shucks no glitter on the object. But the object would still stand. The problem is if you were to take the NA out of the argument, it would completely fall and no longer be an object.

I apologize for the long reply...I just kept rolling.

Stimulus: "I play basketball, therefore I am the best player in the world."

Which of the answer choices is an assumption that is required by the argument?

The answer to this above would be any of the items on the list that JY gave in the video under Necessary Assumption. An assumption that is required by the argument would be: "I am alive" or "I can dribble" or "I know that the spherical round ball goes in the orange circle hoop in order to score points". As you can see, these types of answer choices are necessary assumptions in that they are needed for the argument to logically work. If these answer choices were negated, like if you for some reason found out that you weren't alive or you could not dribble, then that would destroy the arguments validity. Thus they are necessary assumptions for JY's argument. The list of Sufficient Assumptions would greatly help the validity of the argument, but their identifying feature from necessary assumptions is that if you for some reason are not a beast or you have not won 4 NBA Championships(you have won 3) then these don't destroy the arguments validity. They just don't help it out, and are therefore not necessary assumptions for the argument.

Thank you. I feel like your post and this feed was a sign that I should also postpone. I feel like I have the potential to master this test, but like you, it's just taking me too much time. Each question or lesson I take as much time as it takes in order to really understand it. For example, it took me a week or two to get through Sequencing Games.

I haven't completed LG yet--or even started RC--and I have a little left for LR, so I definitely won't have the proper amount of time to take PT's or BR. So, I think that I may postpone till December as well.

I really want to buy into the idea that you should take the test once for your best score no matter how much time it takes. However I don't know if the tradeoff of early admission by taking in September vs. late admission by taking in December but maybe a better score will be worth it. What are y'alls thoughts?

The rub is that(like many others here) I go to college and there will be many things happening throughout the semester that I feel might hinder my learning or time. Has anyone had experience with studying during a Fall semester?

I'm looking forward to watching the webinar! It's still not posted? Does anyone happen to know when it may be online?

Do you have a link to it @thecubicleescapee957

Questions like these where one tries to think about what background information is actually saying can get very confusing. Especially in this case when you try to visualize how it could be the case that after a war there was less damage. But trying to understand the background information confuses the reader and attempting to do will only confuse you further.

What I did was break down what was happening in the stimulus into its basic argument structure. Don't let the background info get in your way of understanding whats going on. For example, the last clause of the stimulus is completely unnecessary and realizing that helps you strike off a couple answer choices very easily. The fact that the levels are lower compared to some temperate region really doesn't play a part in the discrepancy. In fact, I got rid of A, B, and C without having to even really put my conscious thought into them.

So,

-investigators found less of the pollution after a War than they found before the war.

-investigators found less of this specific pollution level after the war than before the war.

-the stimulus also mentions how the oil production slows because of the war. (we'll see how this affects the discrepancy)

How could this be the case when the stimulus tries to have us believe that the War somehow contributed more to the pollution?

Well, D does a great job of resolving this problem. The answer choice basically says, "yea a war may have some pollution effects. But, the war slows down normal oil production. In fact, when there isn't a war and there is normal oil production during any other time(peacetime), oil production transport actually has high levels of the specific pollution level and has MASSIVE oil dumping."

This seems to resolve the discrepancy pretty well.

Great edit to your original idea.

I think of similarly. First, I understand the flaw in the argument: what the author has failed to consider(factors unaccounted for) and what the author has taken for granted(falsely assumed to be true without reasoning). Then, I look for the answer that exposes that flaw and weakens the argument. Look for a statement that if true, shows the way in which the premises don't guarantee the conclusion.

I just realized something that may help, but I don't know what to do with it. Is it possible that the stimulus saying "partial understanding" actually means "not full understanding"? Which would mean it would be internal empathy--> /fullunderstanding? This would make a lot of sense because if something is not full understanding, then it is partial, some, or no understanding.

I could be wrong, but my answer for the question is that Dina gains more understanding. Barry is not open so he does not have partial understanding. Dina has internal empathy so she does have partial understanding. Like DumbHollywoodActor said above, this question is strange in that it asks about relativity and it asks what she "gains" as a result of Bary's unopeness. I am curious what others think about this and I would love further elaboration and analysis.