Holy shit, thank you! These have been whooping my ass, but I'm ready to dive back into them now. I really need to hear the bit about new information not present in the stimulus. Thanks, Kevin!
@Jhilo2915 сағат бұрын
Hey y'all the video cuts out at the end and I don't get to see where he actually solves sample questions. Is it a paid subscription to get more access or does he have another video showing this. I have looked through his other videos and cannot find them, thanks.
@LuminateLSAT9 сағат бұрын
Sorry, that part isn't on KZfaq because LSAC doesn't let us show real problems (except for a select number and you have to pay a ton of $$$ to show them).
@butterfliesarecool387617 күн бұрын
This was incredibly helpful! Thank you
@RachelTaylor-p2h18 күн бұрын
Watching this right before taking my exam and I feel like I FINALLY understand this concept after literally 4 months of studying. So glad I found your channel, and if I retake my test in a few months i'll be watching all of your videos. Thank you Kevin!
@banditbabyyy21 күн бұрын
You are by far the best tutor I've found. You're connecting so many points I hadn't been able to figure out since studying for this bandit of a test 6 months ago.
@pragaaskaur819722 күн бұрын
Thank you!
@capturingthemomentmediallc679925 күн бұрын
At the 23 min. mark, on answer D- can the word "usually" also be translated as Most?
@LuminateLSAT23 күн бұрын
Yes, usually = most. Same with "probably."
@capturingthemomentmediallc679925 күн бұрын
I thoroughly enjoy your videos they help alot
@martinfamilyforever27 күн бұрын
Thank you
@artboettge5826Ай бұрын
Great video, like always!
@capturingthemomentmediallc6799Ай бұрын
wonderful information I am surprised to not see a million views to this!
@AgentHobbes7Ай бұрын
Great tip, awesome examples, and a great video!
@sandrarivera5167Ай бұрын
Finally A BREAKTHROUGH!! Thank you!!
@ManickaVarshiniАй бұрын
I think 'broccoli is delicious' is not a statement because it may varies as true or false according to their choice. Then we can negate this sentence or not
@victornajera6559Ай бұрын
This was such a well explained video. I’ve 100% made the errors explained in this video. I’m glad to see where the errors occurred in my thinking! Thank you!!!
@tinagarcia5481Ай бұрын
Phenomenal breakdown, thank you!
@andresfernades2481Ай бұрын
I still don’t understand why “anything that has wings can fly” is a necessary assumption. Why do we need to assume that everything with wings can fly when all we need is that some things with wings can fly? I understand that is sufficient definitely, but necessary? I still have trouble with grasping that.
@LuminateLSATАй бұрын
Every argument assumes that its premises are enough to prove the conclusion. "Penguins have wings. So, they can fly." In this argument, the only premise I have put forward is that penguins have wings. If I think this premise allows me to conclude that they can fly, that means I must believe that if something has wings, then they can fly. If I did not believe this, then I would not be able to draw the conclusion that penguins can fly merely from the premise that they have wings. So, I am truly assuming that anything that has wings can fly (this is another way of saying "If wings, then fly"). Imagine if the statement "anything that has wings can fly" were false. That would mean the fact something has wings does not automatically prove it can fly. If that's the case, how can I put forth the premise that penguins have wings and believe that this premise, by itself, allows me to conclude that penguins can fly? If there's a possibility that some things with wings *cannot* fly, then my premise is not enough to prove the conclusion. Note how the assumption would change if I changed the premises of the argument: "Since penguins are birds and they have wings, they must be able to fly." Here, I'm giving you 2 reasons penguins can fly: they are birds and have wings. (I'm not longer just relying on the fact that they have wings.) That means I'm assuming, "If something is a bird AND it has wings, then it can fly." I'm no longer assuming that *anything* that has wings can fly. I'm only assuming that anything that is both a bird and has wings can fly.
@andresfernades2481Ай бұрын
@@LuminateLSATthank you so much! This is incredibly helpful! No one explains LR as clearly and precisely as you do!
@r.p.8906Ай бұрын
fantastic! This BEAUTIFUL test!!🙃
@jonlicata4815Ай бұрын
Absolutely hate assumption questions
@Gguy061Ай бұрын
What kind of sadist comes up with these questions?! 😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫
@peril35502 ай бұрын
This was a great refresher. I was confident with the first example to find out I was wrong.
@Gguy0612 ай бұрын
Kevin, don't take this the wrong way, but in this video, it looks like you're holding something in your mouth. You got a dip in? If you can talk for 30 minutes with a dip in, you're a champion
@r.p.8906Ай бұрын
hahaha!! false assumption! You are in the right course...
@willjensen55952 ай бұрын
You are appreciated sir!
@MB-gd6be2 ай бұрын
Just when I was getting better Thank God at logic games...
@MB-gd6be2 ай бұрын
Thanks for your time and help for these videos for the people who study hard for this test
@pacebrowne44822 ай бұрын
i now undeerstand sufficients after millions of failed attempts. thank you kevin
@allidenison2222 ай бұрын
thank you!!! i just started studying for my last this week and this was so useful!!
@wwsswwzjasonhansen52282 ай бұрын
thanks man! not many people focus on mastering the hard questions. these are the few questions that really can change a score. just watched this video and your observation video and a few otherss, they're great
@Quip_gdb3 ай бұрын
Im confused, in 7sage they say the negation for some is all
@LuminateLSAT3 ай бұрын
No, I don't think they say that. If they do, they must have said that the negation for some is "All ... are not" (which means the same as "none"). For example, what's the negation of "Some babies are tall"? No babies are tall. OR All babies are NOT tall.
@Quip_gdb3 ай бұрын
@@LuminateLSAT I copy pasted this from their lesson: "Some alphabets are not phonetic" The negation is that all alphabets are phonetic. The original says there's an overlap between two sets. The negation says "no" to that relationship. The original says "alphabet" set and "not phonetic" set overlap. The negation says "no" there is no overlap. That means the "alphabet" set must be "phonetic."
@LuminateLSAT3 ай бұрын
Yes, there's no contradiction between what we say. The initial statement says some alphabets are not phonetic. So, at least one alphabet is NOT phonetic. The negation is not "all." The negation is "All are ...not" (which also means "none...are"). So, if you apply that to the statement: All alphabets are not NOT phonetic. Notice that we have a double negative in the second part. "Not not phonetic" = phonetic. That's why it becomes: All alphabets are phonetic. Or, No alphabets are phonetic.
@diaryofabadsinger3 ай бұрын
Not studying for an LSAT but I’m building a very powerful app that uses conditional logic to collect user data. I realized that in structuring my conditional logic for determining input field variables, I needed to understand how to program required conditions to make a required input field sufficiently filled to meet the conditions for the determination of the next required input field. Stumbled on this channel and then realized a lot of programmers could use this, and not just LSAT students. Therefore, this logical thinking class can reach a wider audience if it includes programmers in its audience targeting.
@k8schmate3 ай бұрын
really helped, thank you!!
@katynicole16183 ай бұрын
Do you offer tutoring still? Looking to find a tutor
@LuminateLSAT3 ай бұрын
Unfortunately, not right now -- I've joined 7Sage in a content/curriculum role.
@aishahyosof82843 ай бұрын
Omg what a life saver. I watched so many videos but this was so clear and straight forward. Thank you for pointing out that the necessary condition is always on the right so therefore it can't be moved to the left. It didn't click with me until now.
@user-lj9jp7ej6d4 ай бұрын
You are the best ❤ since I started studying Lsat, keep struggling with NA, SA. Finally I get those logical concept with the right explanation..
@anirbanmukherjee52404 ай бұрын
There is an error on slide 4 of principles conditional logic. The premise conclusion on the right side is reversed.
@L-n-o-v-a4 ай бұрын
So interesting
@L-n-o-v-a4 ай бұрын
I just started studying for LSATS. Your videos are awesome. The visuals help me to understand. Tysm
@Kris-mn5hu4 ай бұрын
This I probably the most helpful video yet. 🙏
@diamantetingz4 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for this explanation. This just saved me. I test tomorrow 😭
@glacierblue4564 ай бұрын
Thank you!! I feel like this just took my understanding of conditional statements to another level!
@chaneke0114 ай бұрын
where can we find the second part? thank you for this awesome introduction!
@bacoll355 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for this video! It has cleared up my diagramming dilemma.
@lraoux5 ай бұрын
Extremely helpful. Been missing a lot of weaken questions because of this. What I often do is try to destroy the conclusion as much as possible, based on my understanding of the broader context presented in the stimulus, rather than exploit the flaw in the logic that the author is making.
@babani84185 ай бұрын
my opinion, this guys works are much better than the lsat lab series. I admit that I'm not a smart one, I can't understand fully by watching other videos about assumptions, while he offers these useful techniques and clear mindset that we desperately need.
@schojdfjf649523 күн бұрын
Hey you are smart!! Never doubt yourself, the LSAT is intentionally hard so you’re doing a great job!
@shannonhartcastillo59965 ай бұрын
tysm! this helped me a lot
@amelia91716 ай бұрын
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
@amelia91716 ай бұрын
THANK YOU
@Shawn67516 ай бұрын
18:41 I view that the extra information regarding HBO Game of Thrones is just written to throw us off in a way.
@grantwillis98106 ай бұрын
Done a fair amount of online lsat prep and starting to agree that Kevin is king.
@takara14856 ай бұрын
MY LIGHTBULB JUST FINALLY CAME ON AFTER SUCKING AT THESE! 😄 I pictured the top of an umbrella being a main assumption then the stem but (using multiple stems) as specific explanations that can also work.