Can you explain how "pressure" in option A is considered a satisfactory explanation for both the "car waiting quietly" and the "car honking"? It's unclear how one is expected to intuitively recognize this as the correct answer upon first reading. While I understand that A was identified as true, I'm questioning the methodology used to determine its correctness. Contrastingly, in option C, it's dismissed for not accounting for the honking, but why isn't a similar level of scrutiny applied to option A? The explanation seems to assume that honking automatically increases pressure without explicit justification. So the methodology used for option C, I feel like, has not been used for option A. Rather, I feel like JY's brilliance and high level of intuition solved this problem, instead of relying upon a universal method which all LSAT takers can use. So if the answer to my question is: LSAT LR is ultimately dependent on the taker's innate intuiutions, then it answers my question. But if there is supposed to be a method that can help us not rely so much on intuitions, I would love to know!

#help (Added by Admin)

#help I eliminated C because it says Hollywood films did not transfer to acetide without ever establishing that hollywod films are (currently) nitriate. Is my reasoning not the right way to eliminate C?

Nice explanation

Question: If answer choice (c) got rid of the 'only way' but made it so that there is a 'possible way' that a combination of antibiotics could eliminate bacteria, it would still be a wrong answer right? Because whether (c) becomes more plausible does not make it more supported by the passage right? Please answer me anyone, ty!

#help Added by Admin

In most strongly supports questions, do I have to care about whether the answer choice most accurately captures the overall intent of the passage?

#help Added by Admin

At first, I tried so hard to visualize what the text is saying and this took me 20 minutes without any result; this confusion led me to not even understand why C is the right answer. But as I focused on the structure of the conclusion instead (and less the actual meanings), everything started to make sense.

Focus just on the conclusion. Something being 'safe to eat' would depend on it being 'not poisonous.' So, if the conclusion says bla bla bla 'is safe to eat,' it must be the case that bla bla bla 'is not poisonous.' So the correct answer choice was exactly that, and this was actually, logically speaking, a very easy question. As a philosophy major, I keep trying to 'understand' the text, and this is another lesson where I must stop trying to understand the delicate meanings within the passage and focus on what the logical connection is.

Drawing a domain of "All ET" and drawing two domains of 'Pin-topped' and 'blazed' inside the superset is the method I used. For visual learners, this may help!

I was really confused but I found a way to explain why C is wrong. Here is where I was wrong:

C says: that people who reduced red meat ate the same amount of fat than did people who did not reduce red meat.

At first, I thought, "Oh, there is an increase in other sources of fat for people who ate less red meat, THEREFORE, this explains why the fat has increased."

But, since the people who did not reduce red meat ate as much as fat those who reduced red meat, this new scenario should make no difference than the situation given in the stimulus since the increase in other fatty foods is equally increased for the other group. So those who reduced red meat who compensated fat through other foods would still, in comparison to the other group, have consumed less.

Let's talk in numbers : E.G., if there are numbers 3 and 5, adding 3 to the former would make a difference, making the former now 6, which is bigger than 5. HOWEVER, if 3 is added to both sides, the relationship between the two numbers (in that one is greater and the other is smaller) does not change. 3 and 5 and 6 and 8 are exactly equivalent in forms.

In MSS or POI, do you recommend that I always point out the conclusion stated by the author and go from there? Or is it more important to understand the overall intent of the message, even if it means NOT focusing on the conclusion itself? #help (Added by admin)

Does every MSS or PAI have a conclusion in thr passage (s)? If no, would it be better not to be looking for conclusions? Ofc in this case, there were conclusions and identifying them were helpful. But i want a guidance i cam use in general.

Congratulations.

Question: How do we know when to use a causal chain instead of focusing on the details? Would reading the answer choice A trigger that? Becuase in the previous video, JY, after reading the stimulus says, "Look, we should look at the external structure." But what triggered him to do this just by looking at the stimulus?

#help (Added by Admin)

https://classic.7sage.com/the-new-lsat/

there is a section about this. read here.

Would it be wrong to symbolize it as . 'Snore ---> (likely causes) abnormalities:?' Or, is this symbolization the something as a correlation? I am just confused as to how by reading this passage we are supposed to symbolize a correlation relation and not a one-directional causation symbol

#help (Added by Admin)

This is a good LR explanation, one that does not rely on translating words into logical notations.