This is a great video! I feel like I've encountered a few of these sorts of questions in the past and sometimes I just take the easy way out of it by resorting to focusing on those small assumptions, because I know that those technically are assumptions. This is a good reminder to watch out for those moments because sometimes, it could just be another example of falling into the trap laid out for you by the test writers
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!
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.
Sorry, that part isn't on RU-vid 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).
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!
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.
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
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!!!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
@@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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
