RULE: Captions should be split into individual caption groups such that whole phrases, nouns, sentences, and flow of dialogue is interrupted as minimally as possible, while abiding by the 60 character limit.

WHY: This allows the captions to be easily read by the viewer, with logical breaks and enough time on screen.

 

Split captions...

after terminal punctuation
before conjunctions
before prepositions: 
 All right. Now mismatch concepts is indeed what we are using to get there. You should be noticing what is a matched concept from here, and then also the mismatch.

And just to make this easy, let's walk through it. So, what is our matched term between the conclusion and the evidence? What is showing up in both? Yeah, we're getting this and this, right? Notice that inspect is showing up in the conclusion, inspect is also showing up in the evidence. And that means we don't really care a lot about.

The right answer does not need to include the concept of inspect. What it does need to include is the new information. The new information is saying safe.

Notice we had never said safe before. So, what does it seem like the author is connecting to the idea of safe? Seems like it's connecting to not infected, right? Because again, we want that conclusion to be true. We want to be able to say 100% inspected means safe.

All we know right now is inspected means not infected. So, what we would love to know is a connection between these two. We'd love to know the connection between not infected and safe.

Now, what order should we be connecting those words together in? We got to get specific now. So, what order should we be connecting not infected and safe in? So, I got some good news for you, okay? Good news is if there's only one answer that brings up those terms, it doesn't matter, right? So, like if there is only one answer that pairs together safe and not infected, or even just safe and infected, you can choose it. So, let me know in the chat, how many answer choices pair together safety and infected? How many answer choices have those things? Unfortunately, we get a couple of them, right? Because we get E, as many people have been talking about, because it brings up safe and infected, right? We also get D, which is bringing up safe and infected.

And you might even maybe be thinking about C because it does have safe and infected, but then notice it's also bringing up the, if it had been inspected, so that's really bringing up a bit too much there. So, you do have two. In some ways, this is good, because it means you got a 50-50 shots of getting this question correct.

In other words, it's annoying, right? Because it would be nice if we could just get all the way to the right answer. But if there are multiple answers that have the words you need, then you do need to memorize how the connection goes. The way you know the order of connection is based on where the mismatch concept terms are, everybody.

Many of you are saying evidence to conclusion, and you're right. More often we do go from evidence to conclusion, but we would know that because the terms are on the right side. So, mismatch concept terms on right, like on the right side, equals you should be going from evidence to conclusion.

If, however, the mismatch concept terms were on the left side of both terms you were looking at, then you would actually need to connect them going from conclusion to evidence. Now, if anyone would like a little cheat sheet of this information, which I imagine some of you would, you can actually take a look at our strategy sheets. Right there, I went and dropped it in the chat for you.

This is one you've probably seen before. It does have logic games on it, but you can just ignore that. In the top middle of the logical reasoning side, it gives you two Socrates examples, which show this exact thing.

The mismatch concepts on the right side, you're going to connect like this. On the left side, you're going to connect like that. So let me know in the chat, which do you think, well, go ahead and write up a logic, then we'll talk about the answer.

So how would we write the logic for this question if we're connecting from evidence to conclusion? Oh, and Chika, we know right or left because if you look at inspected arrow infected, the infected is on the right of the arrow. Inspected safe, safe is on the right of the arrow. Brianna, that information with Socrates, it is in the lesson book as well.

It is. So how would you write out the logic for that? Yeah, we want to go from evidence to conclusion. Good job.

So that means we should be writing it out as, if not infected, then safe. Exactly right. If not infected, then safe.

Got to be sure we've got it in that order. Be careful with that. So not infected from the evidence, we're going to safe in the conclusion, because I'm seeing some a little bit different than that.

Now it is possible that the right answer could be a contrapositive, but before you worry about that, let's go and take a look at the answers. Answer choice D. Go ahead and write out for me, what is the formal logic of answer choice D, everybody? Yeah, the any is where we should be starting, right? The any is the if, right? So, this is saying if infected, then it is not safe to eat. Oops.

No, no, no, no. It's supposed to be if it's not infected, then it's safe to eat. Answer choice D is a super tempting trap, but it is wrong.

The nice thing is, as soon as you know answer choice D is wrong, if you've whittled it down to D and E, E must be right. But if you want to go and write out answer choice E, again, this any is the if. So that's going to be written out as uninfected.

A little tricky there, right? But that just means that it is not infected. So, if not infected, then it's safe. Notice that that, yay, is a match for our original.

Now, is this super easy? Is this a nice, quick question that you can solve early on in the section? What do you think? For most test takers, likely no. For most test takers, this is, again, a question you should skip early, right? However, once you know this stuff, it can actually be pretty fast, or at least faster than it would have been otherwise. And that's why we're talking about this, everybody.

Test day is not tomorrow. You got a whole week that you can be practicing. Now, again, don't obsess about this.

Don't feel like you got to do a million formal logic questions. But if this was really hard for you, it could be a very smart thing for you to watch our sufficient assumption channel lesson, or watch our formal logic and logical reasoning channel lesson, if you haven't watched that recently, and to review what is written on that strategy sheet I shared about Socrates, about how terms are connected. And also keep in mind, even if you didn't want to do this question on test day, just by noticing that this conclusion is bringing up the brand new term, safe to eat, and the repeated term of inspected, that we don't care about, unless we likely care about the other term next to inspected, you could have a 50-50 shot of getting this right, that D or E is going to be correct, just through your ability to notice matched and mismatched concepts.

So, without even writing any logic, you got a better chance than many test takers for solving this question. All right, I definitely have more that I want to show you and talk with you about tonight. Let's go ahead and continue onward.

We are going to do another pretty darn tough question, but also a very good question, a question that's got some solid logic going on in it. So here it is, everybody, this is on page 419 in your lesson book, another one you might have seen before. Obviously, we're telling you it's an inference question up at the top.

How would you know that it is an inference question? Bridget, that's correct. It's only if it's on the right side, it's mutually exclusive. So, this is truth language.

Yeah, whenever you see truth, talk about like must be true, must be false, anything like that, that's going to inform you, oh, this is a question of inference. And also, when the truth language is used instead of support, it's very likely that formal logic will be present. Now, I do want to make sure everyone is clear as to what the right answer is going to be doing.

So, since it is a could be true except, please tell me, what will the correct choice do in this question? Yeah, the one right answer will not be a could be true, which means it will be a must be false. Exactly. You can think of that as a 180.

Everybody, we want an answer that's going against the text here. The four wrong answers will all be things that are possible. And please note, if you don't know if an answer is true or not, it could be true.

So, like if one of these answers says cupcakes are delicious, and you're like, the stimulus didn't say anything about cupcakes, that could be true. Now, in terms of doing this question, I am going to let you do this question on your own. But please note, we do see addition to formal logic language like the all, which is like any, and the no.

So, two things we just practiced. We also see a most. What does most mean, everybody? Just to be clear.

Most means, yeah, more than half. Some's going to mean at least one, most is going to mean more than half. So that could matter, though we would say, you know, start with this stuff that's really concrete first.

Start by translating the formal logic, and then you can get into the rest of it. All right, all, good luck on this. We'll see you again in a minute 20.

Talk about how your translations went. And if all you do is translate the stimulus in the same way we did the last question, that is still moving you in the right direction. All right, before we reveal your answers on this, well, let's talk a little bit about some of the things that you might have written out for yourself.

Once again, we've got that no one's that's going to move to the necessary side and there become negative telling us that if you're working 18 hours a day, then you're not going to have time for the leisure activities. And we also learned that all, all is that if, so that's going to be if happy entrepreneur, then they do have time for leisure activities. You might already be noticing something interesting that's going on here.

But then we do also get that first sentence that most, so just let me write the most, most successful entrepreneurs are working at least 18 hours. So once again, if you just had what's currently on screen, you're winning, you're moving in the right direction. Now, who out there noticed that there was a repetition of the 18 and considered connecting that together? Did anyone say to themselves, wait a second, this tells me most successful entrepreneurs work 18 hours.

And I also learned that if you work 18 hours, you're not going to have time for leisure activities. You can totally do that. You can break that longer chain.

We couldn't do that in the previous question, but you can definitely do that here. Now, one other thing you might've noticed is you might've seen LA here, LA here. What could we maybe do everybody? What could we, what could we perhaps think of doing? You could start making some contrapositives from this information.

Now, before I do that, I'll go ahead and show your answers. Let's go ahead and see how people did on this. And wowza everybody.

I know that last question was tough. So is this one. Normally we only see 36% of test takers get right.

Y'all almost doubled that with 67% getting it right. Very nicely done. And this really does come from the contrapositive.

So, the way that contrapositive can be useful to us, the way that can be nice for us is again, we've got that 18, then no time for leisure activities, right? But if we make some contrapositive, we say, well, if you do have time for leisure activities, then you are not working 18 hours, right? So that's one that you could make. You could also make this one. If you do not have time for leisure activities, then you are not a happy entrepreneur.

So, notice this, contrapositive this, this, contrapositive this. Now this, this, you can move up. You can connect to this one right here.

And that would then be, if you don't have time for leisure activities, you are not a happy entrepreneur. So that's where that's coming from. I just took this contrapositive, moved it up there.

Now you might say, Jeff, how does that solve the question? Well, that shows me 18 doesn't have time for leisure activities, not a happy entrepreneur, right? But how does answer choice D tell me something false? D claims what? D claims that there are ones that are working 18 who are happy. No, it's impossible. If you're working 18, you don't have time for leisure activities.

You are not a happy entrepreneur. It's impossible to have an entrepreneur that's working 18 hours and be happy. And notice where that is coming from.

Like, yes, I did go ahead and write out the most successful entrepreneur's component, but really the only part of the logic that you need to focus on is this. Let's get to this right answer, which is just this no part and the all part. So that gets you to the correct.

Now, of course, anyone's got any questions about those other answer choices, please talk to the amazing teacher Harry in the Q&A, but I hope this goes to show why that's what we're grabbing. Victor, I assume you mean the other answer choices. I don't have time for that and to get to the other questions, but teacher Harry absolutely can.

And also, I'm not going anywhere after this class is over. So, if you want to stick around after hours, I will happily go back to any of these answer choices that you would like to discuss that you didn't get to talk with Harry about. So please stick around if you want to do that.

I do want to prove to you all, though, that not only does your ability to translate these sorts of statements help you, but sometimes just being aware of the existence of formal logic is all you need to have a really good guess. This is going to be our last formal logic question. This is on page 270 of your book.

One, again, you might have done previously. So, when we look at the question, we see it's law. We see it's law.

Now, what is something you might notice about this question as you are reading it? What's something you spot? Conditional language. Mimi, absolutely right. If.

Right here. Right here. Now, if the test makers are giving you a law question with formal logic in it, what is very likely going to be the flaw, everybody? It's probably going to be a confusion of necessity versus sufficiency.

So, if you only had 10 seconds left on this section and this question was sitting in front of you, what would be a very smart strategic guess? Exactly right. Because answer choice A says, treats a sufficient condition as a necessary condition. That is confusing sufficiency and necessity.

That's all good. So, the reason I mentioned this, everybody, is I know we just did some monster questions. This was purposeful.

Want to make sure you got to see some tough content. All right. But also keep in mind that just being aware of formal logic's existence on the LSAT and trends associated with answer choices, just that can help move the needle on your score increasing.

Now, of course, if you had a standard amount of time, you would want to write out the formal logic and see that, yes, indeed, they are making a bad contrapositive. I'm not as why A is right. But I just want to again prove, even if you're not doing those really hard high-end questions where you're writing lots of formal logic, just recognizing formal logic can be useful.

Victor, no, absolutely not. That's why I called it a strategic guess. You would be making a strategic guess that because there's formal logic in the flaw question, thus too, the answer is going to be a confusion.

I would say if you see a flaw question in the earlier part of the section, like the first 12 that is formal logic, very likely that's going to be the answer. Notice this was question 11, whereas if this was in the danger zone, they'd probably be trying to fool you, which is what Anshika is talking about. Yeah.

If you're in the danger zone and they give you formal logic and a flaw question, you're probably trying to throw that wolf over your ass. So, once you know, try to do a bit more practice with formal logic and logical reasoning one way or another, not because you're going to see a ton of these questions on test day, just because you could end up seeing a couple of them. The last and final thing we heard was a bit more open-ended inference questions in reading comprehension.

In fact, we heard this from one student happening a little bit more than expected in comparative reading, which immediately made me think of a favorite essay of mine, Oil Well Drilling. This essay, everybody, is really interesting because it has a couple super open-ended questions. I want to close out our session today by taking a look at them and talking about how to be strategic when dealing with open-ended inference.

Yeah, these two passages can be brutal. The questions associated with it can be brutal, but we have such a good tip for you all if you find yourself in this situation. So, I know for many of you, this is just going to be a review of these two essays.

Go and give them a read. They're on page 598. I will also slowly click through the passages.