If you live in NOLA, you live in Louisiana. If you don't live in Louisiana, you definitely don't live in NOLA. But not living in NOLA doesn't mean you don't live in Louisiana. You could live in Shreveport (failing the sufficient). Been studying for the LSAT for like 2 years and finally, FINALLY, these have become easy with this one video. Thank you so much!
Thank you for this! I feel like you do well with explaining, and helping me connect the dots with understanding conditionals. It also helps me understand, why the contrapositive, of term "B" would not equal "A". Because B could equal a whole lot of other things, and COULD be A, but doesn't necessarily HAVE to be. Which allows me to connect my understanding of placement a little better.
What people who study law have to realize is that people talk with varied context: - that maybe talking specifically, generally, sometimes, adhoc, or restrictively -- and it can sound the same in English. So LSAT flawed argumentative behavior could be appeal to known context straw men flaws in the real world. Suppose it is up to lawyers to home in very clearly on what a client really means contextually.
![Tips for Sufficient Assumption Questions [LSAT Logical Reasoning]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KtA7nXgXuTY/mqdefault.jpg)
You are the only instructor that causes the, "ahh, I get it!" synapses to occur in my brain.
If you live in NOLA, you live in Louisiana. If you don't live in Louisiana, you definitely don't live in NOLA. But not living in NOLA doesn't mean you don't live in Louisiana. You could live in Shreveport (failing the sufficient).
Been studying for the LSAT for like 2 years and finally, FINALLY, these have become easy with this one video. Thank you so much!
This was super easy to understand and made the concept make so much more sense than how it is taught traditionally
Thank you for this! I feel like you do well with explaining, and helping me connect the dots with understanding conditionals. It also helps me understand, why the contrapositive, of term "B" would not equal "A". Because B could equal a whole lot of other things, and COULD be A, but doesn't necessarily HAVE to be. Which allows me to connect my understanding of placement a little better.
Thank you for the great explanations. Mastering multiple mental models is like wielding a Swiss army knife!
Thank you!! I feel like this just took my understanding of conditional statements to another level!
Very helpful! Thank you!
What people who study law have to realize is that people talk with varied context: - that maybe talking specifically, generally, sometimes, adhoc, or restrictively -- and it can sound the same in English. So LSAT flawed argumentative behavior could be appeal to known context straw men flaws in the real world. Suppose it is up to lawyers to home in very clearly on what a client really means contextually.
Great tips
Bravo!
I can't wait for this to click omg
Thank you! -2024
Very helpful, thank you!