i will never let this question type trick me again. It is totally reasonable to assume smith will be obliged to repair any structural defects to the house, except for those that jones is responsible for. that just makes sense. But the question is asking what can be concluded FROM THE INFO ABOVE. it simply wasnt stated, it was assumed. D can get F** but i get it now.... never again.

someone just tell me... i read AC A and i said... thats absurd we cant live in a world where people should be excused for violating laws because they werent aware of them............ was my mistake....... thinking????? the question says if valid. im learning

why am i trying to eliminate an alternate explanation for tooth decay when the argument is not even speaking about what causes tooth decay. The stem is arguing that fluoride does not prevent tooth decay. As to what causes it, the stem is completely silent. so why would i be looking for an AC that is worried with causes. thats why i chose AC B because it seems to show that even though all dentists use fluoride america still has higher rates of tooth decay. which undermines fluoride and strengthens the argument. I see that the stem says fluoridated water, and AC B is talking about fluoride in general, and thats partly why its wrong. But as i said, i really dont get why the correct answer choice is tackling alternate causes for tooth decay when the argument is silent on causes and is speaking about prevention.

I was going to complain and say I didn’t know I needed to buy a cookbook in case the LSAT expected me to memorize recipes but then I reread the conclusion

i got this correct. it felt really intuitive, but trying to understand the explanation was super confusing.

potentially needing to make 6 separate conditional chains in 1 min is crazy

im not a scientist bruh

lmao, thinking like a cat.. just say what u wanna say

A--->B

B<s>C

A<s>c

this is invalid. but if there is at least 1 B in the set of C

then shouldnt there be at least 1 A in the set of C. Since all A's are B's?

@meepmeep idk when youre taking the LSAT, but if youre still in school and have time, take a symbolic logic class.

i got 0/3

3 separate times lmaooooooo nice

@Alexis

cannot kill both arya and sansa does not imply needing to kill one of them. it just means he cant kill both.

if he doesnt kill either of them that fact does not contradict the sentence he cannot kill both.

so your /A-->S says if he doesnt kill arya he must kill sansa. which is not correct.

A-->/S is correct because the sentence says he cannot kill both arya and sansa, so if he kills arya he must not kill sansa.

im really trying to understand #5

modus tollens

p-->q

~q

therefore ~p

@PhilipMorse the problem with this is that the arrows represent conditional statements which are like "if then" statements or "only if" statements. when you put L-->J what you are saying in "lawgic" literally translates to if luke then jedi. and with

L--->F what you are literally saying is if you are luke then you use the force. what you want to say luke is a jedi, and the way you state that is by a seperate premise which literally just says luke is a jedi, no conditional necessary. from that you can say okay, we have the first premise J--->F second premise Luke is a jedi, and with that you can conclude Luke uses the force. i hope this was helpful. look up Modus ponens. thats the form of this argument.

@Jakobmisey no what makes the Disney argument strong has nothing to do with the amount of premises, or not even really the strength necessarily. What makes the Disney argument strong is that the truth of the premises necessitate the conclusion. The conclusion can not be false, based on what the premises are.

The premises for the tiger argument offer strong probability that the conclusion is true, but it’s not certain. A tiger can be a pet, it’s possible despite their aggressiveness.

The Disney argument is the strongest because it is a deductive argument. The truth of the premises guarantees the conclusion. With 100% certainty.

While the tiger and cat arguments are both inductive. The truth of the premises provide a degree of probability that the conclusion is true.

The tiger argument is stronger than the cat argument because the premise offers a higher probability that the conclusion is true. This is because for the cat argument, there are so many other explanations as to who knocked over the trash that are very possible and likely, which is not known to the detective. The tiger argument, one thing I can imagine that weakens the argument is that people have domesticated tigers, however it is not common, and there is always a degree of danger and risk if you keep a tiger as a pet, even if it’s domesticated. So the argument is still strong, but not certain and 100% like the Disney one.