Welcome to the LSATAdapt RU-vid channel - your go-to source for top-notch LSAT prep! Our goal is to provide you with free, practical resources that will help you ace the LSAT and reach a 99th percentile score. Our video lessons break down each question type and reasoning structure, offering clear strategies and actionable advice you can use on test day.
Stay up to date with our new content by subscribing to our channel, and for an even more in-depth study experience, sign up for our course at LSATAdapt.com. With our course, you'll have access to our full library of lessons, analytics, and detailed feedback as you work through real LSAT problems. So why wait? Sign up today and take your LSAT prep to the next level with LSATAdapt!
I understand the example but can't help my skepticism of the example given because my car is push-start; therefore, the keys aren't in the ignition while I drive.
impossible to enroll in your course. impossible. what and where do we enroll? The lsatadapt takes me to a page that is " not safe" an my computer does not allow me to proceed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I recall you saying 'the only' is a necessary condition indicator whereas this video states it's a direct sufficient condition indicator. Whether 'the only' is nec. condition or suff. condition, is that situational?
thank you for this going to law school as a speech pathologist to help out in areas that have been in my life with huge influence with a big need. thank you
Hi this is an urgent question! At 12:22, you mention that the negation of 'none' can include 'some', 'most' and 'all'. Why can't it include many? Many is subjective, but it's still more than 'none' so would that not also be the negated form of 'none' ? Also, when tackling a question that requires you to negate 'none', would you negate none in all of its forms? How would that work?
At 5:00 you said all implies most, most implies many, many implies some and that you can’t go up the ladder. But then at 8:39 you said some implies most ? Please elaborate
Hi Jen! Definitely a confusing topic. At that point in the video (8:39) I'm actually trying to explain why you can't go from some to most to all on the ladder chain. This is mostly gonna show up in questions that deal heavily with structure like Parallel Flaw questions where the conclusion is based on some kind of overlap between groups. Just to clarify I thought I'd do a little breakdown of these: I have 'All' implying both 'Most' (51-100%) and Some (1-100%). That's because 'All' is encompassing. Most can imply Some, but not in reverse. When we say most, we mean that the amount is going to be at least 51% and at most 100%, and anywhere in between (I.e. 55, 73 etc). So Most will always fall in the range of Some (1-100%). The only thing that doesn't fall in the range of Some is 'none'. But going in reverse, Some cannot imply Most because we would have to make the assumption that whatever the amount Some is would be at least 51%. Which is not true. I hope this helps, and good luck with your studying, Alex
@@LSATAdapt You said Most at 3:10 is 51% to 99% now your saying it is 51% to 100% - Plus doesn't most leave room for the some that isn't ??? Which is why we stop at 99% because some would be the remaining 1% if that.
