Surprised to see this is a level 5 difficulty question..

How come I always get the easy questions wrong, and the hard questions right? It is like that for every type of question stem.

The ones I got wrong are like one or two level difficulty, I felt so stupid. And then I get everything correct for the four or five level difficulty,

Is it because I overthink too much on easy questions?

okay... okay... I start to get it..

this question took me 4 minutes to do, but I got it right, yay

I feel like it is so crucial to fully understand the argument before diving into the answers. If you fully understood the argument and the point and the support structure, then some of the answers are so obviously wrong and you can go ahead and eliminate those w/o second thought.

That's how I got it correct. Understand the reasoning and point, and what the flaw is conceptually (not just knowing the verbatim of premise/conclusion), then use process of elimination. Once you understand the point by heart, you can spot the right answer even they use subtle/abstract wordings.

coming back here to review this lesson, and I think the two statements are very different.

*“You must sit at (either) one end of the table or the other.”

*

this means exclusive or, because you just can't physically be at two places. Once you choose to sit at one end of the table, you have to not sit at the other.

“Jon must (either) enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester.”

let's suppose we add the "either" in this statement too, this wouldn't change the overall meaning of the sentence. this will still be an inclusive or. It is because there is always possibility for Jon to enroll in both classes. Yes Jon can either enroll in Econ or PoliSci, but there is no information stating that he can't pick both.

If we add a statement saying: For this semester Jon can only pick one introductory course. He can enroll in either Econ 101 or PoliSci 101. Then we can say this is exclusive or, because the statement clearly states by picking one intro course, you have to forgo the other one, there is no possibility of picking two.

hope this make sense!

Hi, from my understanding A is the only principle that Terry's reasoning violates, which makes it the correct answer.

In the stimulus Terry's conclusion attributes dishonesty (basically accused the company for avoiding payment without any direct evidence) while the true explanation of the company failure could be that the company is just incompetent.

AC A says that customers should avoid contributing dishonesty when the actions could be explained by incompetent. And this is exactly what Terry not do, that's why it is being violated.

I hope this helps (I'm also open to other explanations of this!! I personally don't think this is the best question by design)

yes it does, I just came back from looking at the LR section lectures. So this makes more sense now. Thanks!

right, that make sense, thank you

I still don't understand why B is incorrect.. I thought we are suppose to take all the answer choices to be true, right? I understand "high CO2 -> vital to plants' respiration" might not be true in real life, but aren't we suppose to take everything to be true in the LSAT sense?

still watch, I paid for these videos, not going to miss any one of them lol

okay Pat, you win

I tried this one without watching the video, and I got it correct. I did the logic correctly but it took me soooo looooong... I really need tips on how to do them faster...

When we do this type of questions on the test, is it better to read all the answer choices first and then go into the passage?

I missed this question totally because I though horoscopes are determined base on birthdates alone. I mean if they were born on the same day, then of course they have the same horoscope.. Even after I watch the explanation video, I still don't get it. Only until I looked at the comment section I learned about how location can be involved too. I mean I got this one wrong but I don't think I'm at fault here....

Why is that you can't look at the question first?

For this lesson, my takeaway is that:

on the exam, we will be ask to weaken (or find true explanation for) the argument. All answer choices could be potential alternative hypothesis. The correct alternative hypothesis (answer choice) will be the one that, when it's true, explains the original phenomenon (and potentially strengthen the causal relationship? idk about this part). And it will weaken the original argument since the original conclusion (hypothesis) is no longer supported by the premises (phenomena).

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?

I understand it to be: when some situation satisfy the necessary condition, that does not guarantee it will also satisfy the sufficient condition. It may satisfy the sufficient condition, or it may not. One example would be:

*New York is a city in the United States.

I live in the United States.

Therefore, I live in New York. *

This claim has flaws because the two premises does not guarantee the conclusion to be true. Me being in the United States satisfy the necessary condition, one has to be in the US in order to be in New York. But the claim says nothing about the sufficent condition. I might live in New York, or I might not. Maybe I live in LA, that's also in the US, right? So base on the premises, no one can conclude I live in NY for sure.

If there were to be visual diagrams of bi- conditions, like the circles in earlier lessons, what will it look like? Or is that kind of visual diagrams not applicable to this anymore?

I've using 7sage and The LSAT Trainer together. The LSAT Trainer goes directly into discussing the questions that will show up on tests. I feel like by using these two materials together to study is so much better because 7sage courses build the foundation for me. So when I look at the sample questions (especially reading comprehension), I found myself naturally doing grammar analysis, spotting indicators and identifying premise/conclusions. these foundation made comprehension less painful!! Definitely recommend combining different studying materials for the LSAT, never just rely on one source.

Does this type of conditional argument always follow a If... then... format? Can there be situations where the conditional argument is less obviously displayed? Can someone give me an example of that? Thank you

For example three: wouldn't the implied meaning of the sentence be "The empty lot will more likely be developed as a community center than not-a community center."? does this also work?

I need some explanations for questions 5.1-5.4.

for example:

Why would the object clause be " it is unable to lend its printed books and so displays them only when requested for an exhibition." instead of just " it is unable to lend its printed books"?

Pretty pleeeeease

my brain is fried

I only took one diagnostic test, but I remember some questions asking "which of the following assumptions, if true, weakens/strengthens the argument", "which of the following assumptions must be true to weakens/strengthens the argument", or something equivalent to this.