How did you did?

@@shaq98nl 172 baby!

@@ShirleyitsJohn LETS GOOOO

@@ShirleyitsJohn Listen man, please tell me what should i do because whenever im doing a question, i zone out and loose concentration and hence get the answers incorrect. I request you man, Kindly reply lil briefly tho!

@@AliAhmed-xc7zf I kind of struggled with something similar at first. I think it really helped me to visualize the scenario out in my head as I was reading it. The other part is just don't underestimate the power of 8 hrs of sleep and a steady balanced diet. I know that may sound like obvious advice but the practice scores I got on 6hrs and junk food vs 8 hrs and (at least semi) healthy food was pretty surprising.

Thank you for speaking on inferences because I would immediately start questions the validity of the color of the grass rather than the question being asked

You pass?

@@bunnyman6321 it’s not pass or fail but I did not get the score I wanted. I’m taking it again in June

@Xiani E. I just stumbled across this channel and did know the test wasn't a pass or fail. My apologies. You definitely gone do better in June, you got this. May you have much success in your endeavors 💯

@@bunnyman6321 thank you! I appreciate it

@Xiani E. Much respect to you!

How did you do?

@@masteranime1234 I assume not great, since he just learned the most basic thing about LR 2 days before exam.

Welcome to the channel!

We will absolutely get there. The plan is to move to LG now that we’ve covered each LR question type. We’ll get to conditional logic more thoroughly after that.

Welcome to the channel Thee Greatest Ever!

Hello matt sir.

The conclusion is that you should buy a blue car. What’s the reasoning for this? That blue cars are the fastest cars on the road. Immediately when you read this as the premise, you should ask yourself- why the hell should I care about how fast a car is? Turn the stimulus into a real person. If I came up to you and tried to sell you a car, and said that you should buy it because it’s the fastest, how would you respond? You might want to ask me why speed is so important, since I can think of many other things that would be even more important than speed, that would NOT make me buy a blue car. The assumption makes this connection by addressing affordability. The conclusion has to do with pricing (buying), but the premise doesnt mention anything about this. The assumption should therefore account for this gap and make that connection. That’s why speed being more important than affordability is an assumption for this argument. Speed being more important than affordability basically makes it so that whatever the price is, it is justified as long as it’s the fastest car, since speed is more important than saving money in this imaginary world. This argument ultimately needs this assumption, otherwise the fact that the car is the fastest by itself does little to support the conclusion that I should buy it.

So many, but here are the main ways we see comparative reasoning in Flaw questions: parts vs whole, relative vs absolute, specific vs general, appeal to opinion, appeal to authority, bad analogy, equivocation, and others. Outside of Flaw questions, focus on two things being compared at a point in time (think incomplete pros and cons list) or one thing being compared at two different points in time (ask what else might have changed?). Look out for shifts between the two types of comparison as well.

LSAT Lab Can you please explain how 52 -1-6 a conditional logic if you don’t mind

@@contrarianthinker Isn't that one great. There's no way to know it's conditional just by reading it. It would be very difficult to prephrase the correct answer in conditional logic. Your prephrase might sound more like, "yeah, but consistency doesn't guarantee accuracy." Because the flaw in the reasoning is not one of the famous flaws (e.g., ad hominem, correlation vs causation, etc), the flaw will typically describe what the argument takes for granted or fails to consider. In that case, it's all about the underlying assumption.

Great question! The sample question does not have a conclusion. Note the question stem does NOT refer to the stimulus as an argument or the reasoning in it. The question stem calls the stimulus a set of statements. Most questions in LR have arguments, but in Must Be True, Most Supported, Must Be False, and Paradox questions the norm is for statements. In Principle questions it's common too, but not the norm.

There aren't any videos specifically on that topic (although I like that idea for a future video), but during each of the videos on specific question types, we talk through the anticipation stage for that question type.

you don't have to remember everything :)

Thank i'm listening your Course, imma new in The Name of Logical Reasoning, i Hope i can catch up soon Flawless Victory

This video doesn't attempt to teach that question you're referring to. It's just to show people an example of an LR question, so that we can name the parts like Stimulus, Stem, Answers. It gets brought back later to make a quick point about how understanding conditional logic relationships can be crucial to differentiating between two answers that are otherwise saying the same thing. but fwiw, here's why (B) is wrong. we're told that selling noncoffee products would lead to decreased profitability. we're also told that if coffee sales decrease it would lead to decreased profitability. But that doesn't mean those are the only two things that lead to decreased profitability. I could tell you: Jumping off a tall building will kill you. Drinking lots of poison will kill you. That doesn't mean those two are the only things that kill you. So I can't logically derive a claim like "If you died, then either you jumped off a tall building or you drank lots of poison". Similarly, it's possible that profitability decreases, not because they started selling noncoffee products or because coffee sales went down but for some other reason: for example maybe expenses went up. Maybe it costs them much more to buy beans or pay rent or meet payroll. Any increase in expenses could decrease profitability.

@@LSATLab I see, that makes sense now. Thank you for writing that all out, and replying to a comment on a 4 year old YT video. Makes me want to try your service.

We were asked to replace them with new lessons using examples from a different pool of questions by the LSAC. Our LG videos are still available for free at lsatlab.com and we're working to replace the videos we had on our KZfaq channel with new ones.

you did indeed!!

Exactly. It's a big change too. Completely changes the importance of each question type. Think we'll ever go back to the regular LSAT or are we Flex from now on?

@@LSATLab I think Flex is here to stay. Easier on students and LSAC.

@@allgirlreview433 I agree. Guess we need to update the videos :)

@@LSATLab I have been studying pure LSAT and not LSAT-Flex questions so no experimental secton to add more pressure.

Hey-hey. In this video, we're not trying to teach that question at all. There's no discussion of how to read or breakdown the stimulus, how to anticipate an answer, or how to eliminate each wrong answer choice (that's what we do in videos where we are teaching problems). This is just an overview of the LR section. That problem could have been any problem. The A vs. C discussion is prefaced by a hypothetical, "Suppose you were doing this problem and you got it down to A vs. C". He's talking about how "down to 2" dilemmas will regularly occur as we work through tougher problems and making a point about how a technical understanding of conditional logic indicators is sometimes the difference-maker in those decisions. The video isn't assuming that anyone has read or attempted that problem, or that anyone is a dunce if they didn't get it down to A or C. But for what it's worth, (B) is wrong because the question is asking which answer choice we can logically derive from the paragraph. We can't derive that "If profitability is decreasing, it has to be because of X or Y". In order to derive that idea, the paragraph would have needed to tell us that "Only X and Y can cause the coffeeshop's profitability to decrease". The paragraph mentions two things that would decrease profitability: selling noncoffee products / decreasing coffee sales. But it never says those are the only two things that can decrease profitability. The landlord might raise the rent the coffeeshop pays, which would raise their expenses and decrease their profitability. Or said more like LSAT ... "selling noncoffee products / decreased coffee sales" are each sufficient to cause lower profitability. But (B) is acting like they're necessary to lower profitability, like the only two possible explanations for lower profitability would be those two things.

Hi Sogmosee, answer choice (B) reverses one relationship in the statements and negates another. The reversed relationship is the part that if profitability decreases then they will have begun selling noncoffee products. That reverses the third sentence that selling noncoffee products will decrease the coffee shop's overall profitability. The negated relationship is the part that connects a decrease in profitability with a decrease in coffee sales. The last sentence says that the coffee shop can avoid a decrease in profitability only if coffee sales do not decrease. But this answer suggests that if the overall profitability of the coffee shop does decrease then coffee sales have decreased.

@@LSATLab Hi LSAT, sorry I didn't mean this to be a criticism of the guy or video, just of myself. I figured it was just a demonstration of how to handle the situation when it comes down to two like answers. I just like to always pause videos with questions and try to reason about the answer on my own before an explanation is provided. The video is incredible and I will definitely be rewatching a few times. And thank you so much for that explanation. I see now word choice is significant here, as well as the keywords and structure of the sentence. I'm not preparing for an LSAT or anything, but I will definitely be going through your videos as I hope to improve my logical reasoning and ability to argue and find flaws in others arguments. Thank you again!

@@SogMosee I am studying Lsat right now and i have to take the test in two weeks. I also thought B was the correct answer and felt like an idiot. you are not alone.

@@LSATLab You explanation is very clear. Now I understand why B is wrong.