Why D bothers me is I thought "overstaffed"a constant fact. So even with the workloads that comes high and low as pointed out in D, it IS STILL "overstaffed"; not to mentioned its reinforced tone "obviously"overstaffed.

#help

JY says in (C) that causation logic is not conditional logic, can someone kindly point out what lesson am I missing here? Cuz I tend to draw causation into conditional relationships when doing lawgic.

Congrats!

Interested! Please do let us know hot it goes!

I was trapped seeing TWO elements in the phenomenon:

P: driving age grown + fatalities lower

C: more skillful drivers on the road

Seeing the conclusion, I thought we are expecting something break the relationship between age and skillful. ACs are full of answers, however, aiming to break connections between fatalities and skillful. How frustrating.

I have a question regarding part-to-whole flaw:

Here, first set aside the difference between scientist "personal career advancement" and the science community "enhancing the status of the community", which are not actually equal as @tams2018 pointed out below. I still don't get why this feature of this part, can't ascend to the whole:

Part: most scientists are directed toward personal career enhancement, and only some directly toward the pursue of truth (say, 100 scientist forming this science community, 51 are pursuing personal career instead of truth).

Whole: the science community are largely directed toward enhancing the status of that community as a whole, and only some directly toward the pursue of truth.

Why can't we justify this as a ok part-to-whole PC? 51/100 scientist is the bigger part of the community, why it's not ok to say this community is indeed largely directed toward, since most member within this group are indeed directed toward this purpose?

#help

from my understanding, if I simplyfie your stimulus into lawgic:

A-->B-->C

?

..................

A--->D

We're looking for the inference that can link C to D, so we can link all elements up to: A-->B-->C-->D. If getting this, all inference are included (A-->C, A-->D, B-->C, B-->D).

However, what you're suggesting would be:

A-->B-->C

B-->D

..................

A-->D

Of course you can get a A-->D, but you're also getting a B to C and D. C and D under this scenario is not related, whereas in the A-->B-->C-->D world, C-->D.

Hope this helps.

Heads up: JY's lawgic for (E) is not right (also see below for comments made by @Heart Shaped Box ). He was misreading the "the more complex a novel's plot, the less likely the novel is to be made into a movie".

Stimulus' lawgic goes like:

Premise one: C(older)---L---> Crm

Premise two: C---m---> /Crm

Conclusion: C(new) ---L---> /Crm

So there are two mismatching lawgic in (E), which are:

Premise one: N(complex) ---L---> /Nmm

Premise two: N---m---> /Nmm

Conclusion: N(simple)---L---> Nmm

#help In previous video, JY said it's up to us to do 4 or 5 sections PT. But since there must be 5 sections on the real test day, and we can't distinguish the five from which one is not scored, we should take all five as equally serious as possible. So my question is, why is taking 4/5-section PT is still optional?

On how to see D is the correct AC:

At first glance, I though the correct AC should point out the gap between “different methods” and “no need to look further for an explanation of the difference in the studies’ results;” in other words, I treat “two methods” as a part of the FACT that we just need to live up with.

I was wrong, the premise says “examination of the studies, however, they use different methods..., thus...” So the “two methods” is a part of the ARGUMENT, not FACT, based on a flawed assumption (as explained in AC C); it’s our job to point out that the stimulus is flawed in making such an assumption like that.

Thank you! that clears things up!

The difference between “premise-conclusion” vs. “phenomenon-hypothesis/explanation” stands out in this question. More often a time it’s not so important to discern them from each other. They’re both listed as AC here, however, we need to take their differentiation more seriously.

The phenomenon: From the second sentence “This is not surprising, because…” we can tell the first sentence is an observed phenomenon. We would definitely be expecting an explanation/hypothesis in the following sentences.

The explanation/hypothesis: because the more…the more aware its members are the…. [notice] the following sentence “Specifically, people realize…drawbacks.” is just an add-on details to Sociologist’s explanation (because the more technological… drawback). It's not yet another new condition/conclusion/premises.

As for why JY write down P/C on the left, is just a low resolution of the paragraph arrangement, since in a broader sense, the phenomenon is a kind of premises and leads to what the writer really wants to tell (aka the conclusion), but to precise it’s an explanation/hypothesis. Rather than concluding something, it's more of an explanation to a phenomenon. Explanation isn’t 100% equal to conclusion, though most of the time they serve the same purpose, which is to reveal the speaker's point.

That’s why A is incorrect, and B is the correct answer.

For why D is not weakening the arguments, I’ve found quite a few reasons as follow:

(1) JY’s version: Find out premise, main premise/sub-conclusion, and main conclusion. While checking each of their relationships, we found the link between premises and sub-conclusion is weaker, so we attack from here. Thus the answers could be attacking minimum wage→can’t afford to continue to employ as many workers for such jobs. D is then a side information, not to weaken the relationship mentioned above.

(2) Forum:

a.“Most” represents 51%, which means 49% are not earning more than the minimum wage, which is quite a larger amount of people, and could lead to the raise of unemployment rate still. Not weakening the argument, and even affirming it.

b.Beware, the stimulus says "raising the minimum wage significantly will cause an increase in unemployment," it does not say "raising the minimum wage will significantly increase unemployment." → under the circumstances of not knowing how much MORE as “most workers earning more than the minimum wage,” what if the “more” is just a marginal plus (ex. earing 50 cents more than the minimum wage), while raising significantly is larger than the 50 cents? This still leads to the raise of unemployment rate, not weakening the argument.

C: F was widely unpopular among his subjects.

P1: remove financial support for arts

P2: many satirical plays write about him

Here I want to say more about why A is incorrect:

P2 says: concluded from the large number of satirical plays that were written about him during his administration.*

→Among satirical plays, the # of F in vs. the # of F not in

(A) says: fails to consider the % of plays written during F’s administration that were not explicitly about F.

→Among all kinds of plays, the % of F in plays vs. the % of F not explicitly in plays;

It’s no use to think about “"Out of all the plays written during his administration, what % were about F, and what % were not about him?"” which is what (A) does.

If to correct (A) as a right answer, we are thinking about making the sample size up→ cases (satirical plays about F) up, thus "a large number of satirical plays written about him" is nothing, for the sample size just get bigger. (A) should be changed to: "fails to consider the # of plays written during F’s administration that were explicitly about F." OR "fails to consider the increase # of satirical plays written during F’s administration."

Hope this make sense.

In order to save time, I was using POE and arbitrarily deleted (D) when seeing it starts with "a conclusion". I ended up choosing (C) even though I have deep doubts on the wording "indirectly." Lesson learned.

Here: https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/active-reading/

Does a cancelled score/test included??

You need to bear two important ideas in mind firmly, first the WAmc→P relationship, then the definitions of each concept mentioned in the stimulus---soon you will find there's one thing that missing in the stimulus, "work of art." Thus any option that try to say one thing is or isn't a work of art, is wrong. Follow this rule you can delete A, D, E in a snap; B can be solved with WAmc→P.

At first I tried too hard on grouping them into two main categories ( work of art vs. non-work of art-limerick), and further divide them in to two other types ( language-poem,novel vs. non-language-symphony). I didn't draw the lawgic as far as I see the indicator "any." I dig too deep and missing the big picture. Sometimes all you need is stick to lawgic and definition that DO listed in the stimulus then you will be okay.

The thing is, as you scroll down the commenting areas below each question, there must be some sager's comments you would be expected and heavily depended upon, @ is one of the names I would be looking for. From him, I learned that LSAT is hard but learnable, and it only reward those who persevere far exceed the pain that must precede the victory. I highly recommend everyone who's looking for a change in prep to have a talk with him, it would be one of the most well spent time during the journey in LSAT.

#help

What confuses me the most is the word "since".

I thought the sentence that starts with "since" is in a past perfect tense, which means people have been trying to domesticate animals that worth domesticating since ancient time UNTIL NOW but failed. So I don't see the argument as analogical (past vs. present), because it's not a clear cut between past and present but a continuous phenomenon. I was then specious about the answer

A, which might be related to the dichotomy conclusion (which is totally unreasonable).

Am I misunderstanding the grammar? For instance, if it is the past perfect tense, should the sentence be "people undoubtedly have tried"? Or it IS a simple past tense, and "since" is functioned as "for"?

#help How to be so sure about two factors are in correlation but not causation? Is it the case that as soon as not seeing an indicator or “is/are” between them then they are correlated?

Another thing is, is the contrapostive of “more/higher” →“lesser/lower”? Wouldn’t it be “not more/not higher, which could be implying both “equal” and “less”? then even if more cholesterol in blood is causing higher risks to die from heart attack, can we still say (A) is the“must be true answer choice as JY said in the video?

I have troubles in understanding what (E) means.

The proportion of (calories from alcohol in a diet) is more significant for body fat gain than are (the total calories from alcohol.)

Am I bracketing them right? How do we understand this sentence?

What total calories from alcohol??