Flaw | LSAT Logical Reasoning 

Hi Noir! Tough one for sure. Keep in mind that this one is not about what is sufficient for Australopithecus's survival, but rather what is necessary for it. In this case, coping with diverse environments is necessary for survival according to the anthropologists. Answer (D) is one geared more at a causal line of reasoning. It seems to hint at an alternative cause. But it's not really an alternative cause for surviving, but rather a possible alternative cause to not surviving. But this argument never said that coping with diverse environments caused it to not survive.

@@tationutube Thank you! I very much appreciate the kind words. I teach and tutor every day and I'd love to connect. Grab a spot on my calendar if you'd like to discuss what it would take to get to your target score of 180. calendly.com/lsatlab/30min

For a lot of the percentage things we'll show, it won't add up to 100%, because categories can be overlapping. In the case of an argument, it might have a Causal and a Comparative reasoning structure, so getting "double counted" will mean that when we add up Causal, Comparative, Conditional reasoning types, we'll get more than 100%. Similarly, an answer can be wrong for more than one reason, so if we end up tagging an answer choice as having a word that's Too Strong and a concept that's Out of Scope, then it can similarly get double-counted.

My thoughts exactly!

Hey, Vanessa I'm mostly confused by the question because it doesn't seem like it's related to the video you're commenting on (how an argument is Flawed). If you're doing Flaw and you see a conditional, then there's a 90% chance that the flaw will be confusing Necessary and Sufficient conditions (presenting a rule like "If X, then Y" and then applying it via some illegal negation or reversal: "Tom is Y, thus Tom is X" / "Tom is not X, thus Tom is not Y") Your question sounds more about Must Be True questions -- in those, if an answer choice is saying the contrapositive of a conditional that was stated in the stimulus, then yes it will be the correct answer. The contrapositive of a conditional always must be true.

Hi Sajita, we’re working on a video with more examples now. If you subscribe to the channel, you’ll be notified when we release new videos. The one for you will be called 10 Famous Flaws and we’ll release it as soon as we complete it. Maybe Friday.

Yo-yo. Necessary and sufficient conditions refer to conditional logic, inflexible rules of certainty/necessity. There isn't any conditional logic in that paragraph, so that would be the easiest way to eliminate the Nec vs. Suff answer. That flaw is basically synonymous with "the author botched an application of a conditional logic rule". We usually spot conditional logic by seeing an indicator of certainty/necessity (e.g. if, when, whenever, all, each, any, every, no, the only || only, only if, unless, must, requires, ensures, will, guarantees ... etc.) The only thing resembling conditional logic here would be the first sentence, "My friends say that I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly". I would not call that a conditional statement because it isn't a timeless, inflexible rule. It's just a conversational statement about cause and effect. But suppose we DID call it a conditional "If I drive recklessly --> I will have an accident" For the author to commit a Nec vs. Suff error, he would now have to apply that rule in a Backwards or Opposite fashion. The rest of his argument would sound either like "Since I am going to stop driving recklessly, I will thus never be in an accident." or like "Since Joey got into an accident, it must mean that Joey was driving recklessly."

@@LSATLab much appreciated! Thank you

What do you mean ?

The idea behind the Famous Flaw we call "Causal" is that the author is overconfidently thinking that X is the cause, when it could be Y or Z. She's failing to consider alternate causes for whatever phenomenon she's trying to explain. The idea behind Intent vs. Outcome is that "just because X caused Y to occur doesn't mean that anyone intended Y to occur". So, yes, there's a causal element present, because Outcome / Result / Consequence are all synonyms for Effect. But the flaw isn't about what Caused the Effect. We know what caused the effect. It's only a question of whether that Effect was intentional or not. Let me know if any of that is confusing.

@@LSATLab thank you. It's clear

Yeah, we have a lesson specifically on enumerating the top 10: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NK6rurhc_5M.html

Yes, we do. We offer three different subscription models, but we also customize them if people want more tutoring: $49/month: everything on site (including class recording), but no live classes or tutoring $99/month: everything on site + attend as many live classes as you'd like (there are around 40-50 per month) $299/month: everything on site + unlimited live classes + 2 hrs. of tutoring For tutoring beyond that, we usually charge $100 / hr, unless you're buying it in bulk. To use our site you'd need to have a PrepPlus account with LSAC (that $99 per year subscription that lets you see all the tests on LawHub), although if you were doing a la carte tutoring (at $150/hr) you wouldn't need that.

Any specific feedback would be awesome.

You suck

@@LSATLab dont listen to her she has the iq of an almond