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

If it were a real timed-section, you would know how much time 'should' be allotted for each question based on which question number it is. Usually, but not always, first 10 questions are easier than the last 10. So, if you would have found this question as question 1, you should probably spend less time than 1 min or 1:30 min. Taking time-sections will give you that feels.

good job!

Words like 'indicates' 'speculates', 'tends' are all correlations. On the other hand, causation uses words like 'if, then' or 'will' 'cause', etc. I understand your confusion; the premise uses 'reduce.' But it starts off by saying 'research indicates.' As we know, some thing which research indicates is not hard truth. It is a very plausible theory at best.

I agree. JY just asserts that B is an obvious choice, but I honestly didn't find it so fitting. POE was the way to go.

Congratulations.

One way to not feel lost is to go through the LR lesson plans first. Once you finish the lessons on LR, come back and see these Logic Foundations. It will make more sense.

I think it is false dichotomy. It assumes there are only two scenarios, say A and B. From this, by attacking A, we conclude therefore B must be right. This, I think, captures the logical fallacy shown in this problem.

I agree. Dice example was so helpful too.

#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

Very sometimes, JY's explanation relies on us being on the same level as him and feels like the explanation is inadequate. But I personally don't think this video is one of those. For one, answer choices other than C are so irrelvant that I think C would be a good contender by indirect proof. But JY explaining the distinction between Ancester Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Modern humans sufficiently explain the gap in the argument.

The stimulus implies that there is a DNA discrepency between Ancester HS and Neanderthals but YET uses as evidence the discrepency between MODERN HS and Neanderthals. Therefore, we need a necessary condition that ties this gap. Just by knowing this (and this is what JY explained), C is right. But JY even went beyond and explained the logic behind C; C

was pretty much saying that the Ancester HS was different from Neanderthal as much as modern HS was different from Neanderthal. This ties the gap. Hopefully this helped.

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!

*the same thing #help

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)

Even if there are 5 independent premises that each lead to the rule, you would only need 1 of those 5 rules to trigger the rule. Unless there is a conjunction that tie the premises, one is sufficient.

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)

I am confused. Are you saying that you do or dont get later prep tests if you click on "simulate modern"?

I had the same thought

same

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

I get your confusion in the exact way you are confused. Here is how I reconciled it. There is an allegation. --> There are two groups: Those who believe the allegation is true and those who do not. Here, the change in support of a mayor will occur only among those who believe the allegation is true, because for those who do not believe this allegation is true, why would this allegation (which they do not believe) lead to changing their positive views?

Following this, if it is true that those who believe the allegation is true already voted negatively on the mayor's performance, whether these people believe this allegation is true or not does not impact the other, since these people (we are told as a given) already voted negatively on mayor's performance.

I hope this helps.

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.