all right hello everybody all right um this is Dean we're going to start today uh with continued into our logical reasoning lesson um and we're going to go through again the famous five uh the famous five question types and these are essentially 75% of logical reasoning we need to argue on all these uh the famous five um all right I'm going to put this right here and I'm going to move this person here all right so we have the famous five and what are the famous five they're the famous five uh they're the famous five question types again they make up 75% so these are question types like strengthen question types like weaken uh flaw questions um we have necessary assumptions all right and we have sufficient assumptions which are kind of scary um but they're not that scary once you understand what a sufficient assumption is what a necessary assumption is and I have two lessons on necessary assumptions and trying to show you what those are in those other lessons so they're on the other YouTube videos go watch those first if you have not watched the if you have not um all right um but today we're going to kind of go over a few of these question types we're going to go over some necessary assumptions gonna go over some flaw questions uh we're going to go over probably some strengthen questions um not no sis assumption questions just yet they're actually kind of easier than you think um probably if I had to rate the hardest questions in here it'd probably be necessary assumptions first flaws are second strength the weaken on the same tier and then sufficient assumptions easier than those anyways if you care to know all right um but we have some famous we we have some rules today that we always want to make sure we're following and this is translating sentences all right translating sentences is as simple as it sounds we need to make sure we're translating the stimulus understanding what each sentence means you think I'm joking but this is what lawyers do all day long they like look for little things that are wrong in a sentence and then they will like you know cross it out or they'll argue it in court and then you get your butt kicked and then you just lost $89,000 in your litigation spanning over six months because you forgot to put a comma in the wrong wrong place right it's true case in fact actually there's five million so yeah don't be that lawyer that lawyer got sued by the way um anyways uh so translate sentences very important lawyers are super literal they're like your English teacher in high school but on steroids right all right so translate sentences very important um second thing we're going to do is we're going to um we're going to look for these uh the conclusion right we need to make sure that we're spotting the conclusion um so spotting and we need to make sure that we like find this conclusion and that's like our most important part when I'm going through logical reasoning I'm only really doing these two things initially all right this is like step one step two whatever you want to call it all right questions on this so far okay three I like to do this thing where I like to and I like to do it because I just think it's helpful for for new students even some students that have been doing the Els out for a while I like to summarize the premise and the conclusion in my own words right importantly putting in into your own words because you can you're going to start to see what we call the gaps what the heck is a gap it's not that scary don't make it scary please a gap is just uh something from the premises that is not lining up necessarily with the conclusion it's a flaw you're going to see it defined in so many different ways from so many different prep test companies um but a gap is a bad thing to have in your argument and so we want to expose those gaps again I explain gaps more in my uh LR lesson two so you can go watch them there um but gaps is just like something that's not lining up um what is a gap uh gaps come from and this is where you kind of keep your eye on the ball here uh gaps come from new ideas in the conclusion all right and we're now introducing something else plus uh strong language in the conclusion so write that down uh gaps are going to show up um so new so strong language in the conclusion can definitely create a gap it's not good and when we see strong language we got to attack that right it's like the opportunity for you as a lawyer to be like hey no way I'm attacking that and then new ideas in the conclusion um so what do I mean by that new ideas you can't bring up new stuff in the conclusion you can't just start talking about certain things and then just say and therefore you know here's this new idea so what does that look like in a practical sense um so let's say like a first premise premise one um says something like um Dean has a dead plant in his balcony right which is true rip Dean has a dead plant in his balcony that's premise one um therefore so this is the conclusion um and we're going to bring up some new stuff not allowed to do that therefore Dean is irresponsible right um that's bringing up new ideas we can't do that you can't just start talking about what makes something responsible or not responsible Etc and so if we're going to tack that we're going to tack that new idea like how do you define responsibility is responsibility the same thing as having a dead plant um and then we're going to argue and use some of our Logic on it all right so no new ideas in the conclusions and no strong language in the conclusion we attack those things right that's where the target is that's where we launch the missiles at all right go ahead and write that in just open that up all right sorry I'm lecturing too fast I'm on a roll right all right any questions on this Dean has a dead plant in his balcony therefore Dean is irresponsible good okay so let me show you how I attack this real quick just by attacking what we call the Gap um I say Dean is responsible because what if the plant dying was not his fault what if Dean lives near a nuclear reactor and that kills plants all of a sudden this conclusion looks pretty dang dumb pretty dang dumb right um or we can come up with some other things right um Dean is responsible because um the plant died from a bug infestation oh that was out of Dean's control oh right um so this conclusion starts to seem a lot a little more uh weak right and that's what we're trying to do right lawyers love to argue this is how you argue you need to argue all right questions on this guys okay so let's go back um to here gaps right we're looking for gaps we're spotting new ideas in the conclusion Etc okay so step step one translate sentences step two conclusion spotting step three summarize the premises and the conclusions right you're looking for those gaps and step four focus on new ideas or language strength I say or or also means both right so focus on both right focus on new ideas um and plus let's just say plus plus language strength all right questions on this all right because these are the gaps go ahead what do we mean by language strength here oh strong language good question um say and we're going to see that today on this first question where things just kind of get a little too unproven now when you're making a conclusion yasi you want to say something that's like you want to use what we call soft language not what we call like hard language and hard language is like saying like never or always right um and it's saying like like it's like saying like only siths deal in absolutes right I don't know if you remember that from Star Wars you do okay cool you're like one of the first students that knows that um so anyways all right for the culture we have to do this real quick all right only siths deal and absolutes all right uh ignore that text for a second um so this is from I remember I was a kid when this came out only siths only a Sith deals and absolutes right um very strong right and um not allowed to say that right what if you said this this might be a little more proven that's a that's a conclusion right that's kind of hard to prove what if you said sometimes a Sith deals in some absolute statements yes that would be proven a lawyer would love to say that right sometimes a Sith May notwithstanding other circumstances deal in some sort of absolute right lawyers love vling big language because you can kind of Wiggle yourself out and be like well technically this didn't apply or this did apply right um lawyers love having gray area and when you have strong language there's no gray area right just like when you're uh reading a law and the law says like if you murder someone then you go to jail like that's a pretty clear-cut law right um but you might have some laws that say like hey if you're out causing a a ruckus at late at night then you can go to jail there's a lot of vagueness there right what what's what's a Ruckus who knows it's arguable what's late at night 6:00 pm 5:00 pm 1:00 am right so lawyers love to argue in the language stuff language is one of the most important things you're going to learn on the LSAT we need soft language for conclusions or inferences um but they're going to use a lot of strong language here like only a deals an absolute things like that um and that's wrong um so if we go ahead I want to skip forward real quick um to this conclusion um hold on one second uh let me get my text box here oh my gosh Zoom just updated all right um so step one we want to translate step two we have to find conclusion all right three we focus on uh the premises plus the conclusion uh four we're finding gaps right which is going to be strong language um plus uh we're looking for new ideas all right um we'll talk about five let's finish this up and then we'll talk about the strong conclusion we're going to see in a second um and then so step five is the most important part we need to argue the opposite of what of the conclusion all right I'm putting in all caps so you guys can like always remember this all right always argue the opposite of the conclusion because your arguments are basically going to be the correct answer on these Famous Five like literally whether it's a flaw question a necessary assumption a strengthen a weaken you finding that like Central flaw to this whole thing is going to just you know destroy it all right and it's going to be related to the answer now that's true for like 70 to 80% of questions that's a big amount right um all right so argue the opposite of the conclusion I'm going to keep this right here and we're just going to have it there um by the way I also want people translating my students to translate um answer choices a lot of students don't do that I've worked with some students they paid me thousands of dollars and I come back and they're like Dean I was so successful in Reading comp or and logical reasoning or whatever and all of a sudden I hit a dip what happened explain to me and I'm like okay like we can do a lesson but I'm probably sure I know what you're doing wrong like you're not reading you're not translating and they come in and they pay me a bunch of money and then I go yeah you're just not reading the answer choices like what happened where's the translation just tell me what answer Choice C says and they go well I don't really like answer Choice C because of and like I don't care what you like or dislike tell me what it says first um so translating answer choices super duper important everyone got that all right super duper important don't make don't pay me a bunch of money to tell you that again and again and again um okay so let's go to this first question um all right so I'm going to do this I want to I'm gonna take the rein on this and then um I will let you guys do a couple questions yourself if you want to um but let's read this first and I'm going to translate It My Way childhood and please don't read ahead if you're reading at home or if you're at home or on YouTube just follow along trust me you don't need to be the Gunner okay gunner in law school is like the annoying teacher pet don't need to do that just let me guide you no Gunners today all right childhood lead poisoning has declined steadily since the 1970s when leaded gasoline was phased out and lead paint was banned okay so childhood lead poisoning going down why we stopped putting lead in our gas in our cars and we stopped putting lead in um paint it's just a fact no conclusion here yet all right but we know this is going to be a dumb argument because there's a flop all right so so what about this lead so what um but okay so we have a but cool but recent statistics show that 25% of this area's homes still contain lead paint that poses significant health hazards okay so in this area we got 25% of these houses and they got lead paint in them uhoh all right let's see what dumb conclusion they're going to say I'm going to highlight it for us all right therefore if we eliminate the lead paint in those homes then childhood lead poisoning in the area will finally be eradicated okay so if we get rid of the lead paint in those homes then childhood lead poisoning in the area will be eradicated I don't buy this I'm a lawyer I'm getting paid to argue right right so let's go through our checklist and let's make sure we're doing everything correctly so did we translate yes we find the conclusion yes let's focus now on what are the premises and what are the conclusion so um first off uh the premises we have some homes that still have 25% of homes still have lead in them lead paint in them the conclusion what's the conclusion say I'm see how I'm doing this from memory too all right so 25% of the lead Paints in the home what's my conclusion say here uh the conclusion says that if we get rid of the lead paint in the homes then the area is going to be completely clean of lead these Childs are going to live great lives and going to be elsat tutors and elsat students and go to law school all right amazing so what are the gaps or what are the strong language or the new ideas um that we're talking about here um go ahead Alex what's the strong language let's start with that first um there's really strong language in the conclusion when it says will be eradicated yeah will finally be eradicated right that's strong red flag 101 good job um what about this is there have we kind of gotone a little broad a little like too zealous in our shoot uh in our conclusion we did um we're not talking about like oh therefore if we eliminate lead paint in the homes childhood lead poisoning in those homes will be eradicated do we go a little more expansive than that a little too greedy do childhood lead poisoning in the area will finally be eradicated in the area what do you guys buy that it's just a lead paint so all we got to do we just got a fix lead paint man just passed the legislation Congress I swear this is why nothing ISS done in the world and legislators um aren't the smartest they're just like oh we just got to like get rid of this lead paint we'll be good let's argue the opposite here all right we're down to our last step so we found some of these gaps right we know that this is this is not true this eradicated idea um and also in the area right those are those are really trying to throw in my jenzy language all right argue the opposite of the conclusion this is what we need to do all day long um so let's argue the opposite the conclusion here um and what is the opposite of the conclusion I like taking it literally word for word I think it's good practice I did it as a student I want you to do it too if we eliminate gosh can't spell if we eliminate uh lead paint in homes then child Hood lead poisoning will not be eradicated all right because what if XYZ ABC QRS all right so if we eliminate lead paint in those homes lead poisoning will not be eradicated because why um because what if the lead paint isn't what's killing all these kids right I get it there's a lot of lead paint but we already know lead can come from gasoline and it can come from paint can't there be lead in the water pipes too legislators didn't think about that when they passed this bill they're just like yeah just get rid of lead paint bro we're going to be fine uh yeah what about the lead pipes what about um lead in your pencils interesting see how we're getting closer and closer to just being like yeah bro I don't I don't dig your conclusion your conclusion is actually probably wrong right that feeling of satisfaction where you're like you feel a little impressed like yeah I just ripped them a new one right that is what you need to be able to do in logical reasoning you got to be able to attack attack attack attack okay because we said Hey what if it comes from other places so what but what if lead has other sources and my probably my biggest argument here is that it comes from like water water in pipes right um that's what I'm going to say so what if we have lead coming from these water and these pipes uh that would be really bad for this conclusion so um let's go through and so we're looking what's the flaw in this argument um something like overlooks the possibility that and I'm I'm trying to use a little bit of elsat language like overlooks the possibility fails to consider right those kinds of things um so fails to consider that lead may be in the water pipes as well right that' be a flaw argument um okay so let's go through uh the answer choices and let's go take a look u a relies on statistical claims that are likely to be unreliable okay so we did have some statistical claims but that's not like we didn't just rely on statistical claims it wasn't oh hey 25% um you know this for this to be the flaw it would have to be a lot more obvious um it would have to be something like hey 25% of like law students studied with or 25% of Harvard Law students studied the elsat with Dean therefore you have a 25% chance of getting into Harvard if you study with de like what that doesn't make sense at all okay so I don't think that this is going to be the correct answer all right B relies on an assumption that is tantamount AKA important to assuming that the conclusion is true um so what is the Assumption I don't know right this doesn't seem to me to be the right answer I would probably give this a soft cross out and come back to it if I need to but it's just not clicking right I want an answer Choice that's similar to what we objected I know I hit the nail in the head I know I found the flaw in this this this question let's read see fails to consider all right fails to consider that there may be other significant sources of lead in the area's environment this is exactly what we talked about this seems to be the correct answer all right uh let's look at D takes for granted that lead painon homes can be eliminated economically what do we care about economics no now we can bring up new ideas in the in in these an choices that's not a bad thing per se right it's not a bad thing all the time but this just seems to be like Way Off the Mark right um so I'm probably going to say that this is incorrect right do we care about economics here let's look at e uh takes for granted that children reside in all of the homes in the area that contain lead paint uh too strong word all I don't like right soft Lang language is a requirement in flaw questions you need soft language here right you have to make sure we're accurate look at C what soft language is in C we have may sorry I didn't see you raise your hand um fails consider that there may be other in in the are's environment yes there's only really one part but yeah right all right so this is the correct answer I come back to be I'm like yeah I don't I don't know man I feel more confident c c is the correct answer all right questions on this guys okay so as you can see gosh shouldn't have put all these check marks next to all this stuff ah okay all right we'll come back to it you guys have it on your paper um so as you can see that you need to focus on attacking these arguments if you do it will make sense believe me questions on this everybody no all right let's go to the next one oh shoot don't look here ah crap all right you guys know the answer see um oops my bad Dean was studying this earlier so I could get it right for you guys my heart okay love you guys love my students all right so let's go through this okay we know the answer is C let's not hide it anymore um so let's go ahead and uh let's read this let's translate this and let's go from there all right um so since the 1970s environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincing legislators to enact extensive environmental regulations okay what a big sentence so environmentalists or like tree huggers um go up to the legislators and the lawmakers and they're like hey make more laws protect more trees that's my translation anyways it's just my thoughts in my head okay I don't think it's bad to be a tree hooker I just think it's funny um I always think of like those people that like the chainsaws and then like Homer Simpson anyways The Simpsons has a lot of stuff on this I think it's funny um I can't keep bringing up all these memes or we're never goingon to get anywhere all right um so just a fact right we just have this fact that in the 70s right we've had some successful legislation um getting passed and you can't cut down a thousand trees per day I'm sorry bro you're going to have to only cut down a 100 trees per day all right let's keep reading yet all right looks like we're taking a little bit of a turn yet as environmentalists themselves not only admit but insist the condition of the environment is worsening not improving oh now we don't know how the out there feels yet right but these environmentalists are kind of hitting the Doomsday button they're like hey right the environment's getting worse Etc all right still no main conclusion yet let's see the next sentences and it does right we have the word clearly right I hate this word clearly by the way never use this in your writing it just sounds dumb because if it was clear you wouldn't have to say clear it's like redundant it's reductive right if you ever use this in your legal paper I I I don't know I'm not a judge but if I was a judge I'd be like what do you mean clearly like you haven't proven anything again if it was clear you wouldn't say it's clear all right so my rant on clearly um clearly okay so here's the conclusion the dumb conclusion we're going to run into clearly more environmental regulations are not the solution to the environment's problem okay let's run through our process what so we translated found the conclusion and now we're going to kind of articulate the premises and the conclusions so what's the conclusion the environmental laws um are not the solution to our problems why because what's the premises uh the premises uh we've had these laws in place for a long time and things are still getting worse and you're like Dean is the best argument I've ever heard and I would say you are at the bottom half the smart people in this world right you don't want to be on the bottom half and these people can vote which is the sad part all right so just because we have environment getting worse and just because we have some um laws getting passed doesn't mean anything right and we have to argue against this so let's now take the opposite of this conclusion which is where all the magic happens um and if Dean can figure it out all right all right hold on one second all right so let's take the opposite of this conclusion um clearly more environmental regulations are the solution to the environmental problems because what if because what if um and let's just say what if what uh what if things were going to get significantly worse without these LW right could be so let's just say like what if we had what if we have 10 million say 10 million pounds you guys are Canadian kilograms of plastic in the ocean right and without legislation we would have 44 million kilograms does this conclusions start to sound kind of silly and kind of dumb if we bring this fact up right we're like hey what if like we would had four times the amount of plastic without this legislation I know it hasn't been getting better but what if it got way worse and then that the speaker is like oh yeah you kind of brought up a good point it's that logic stuff you've been studying all right now we know C is the answer so let's read c um okay hold on one second all right fails to consider all right so here we are fails to consider the possibility that the condition of the environment would have worsened even more without the environmental regulations yeah all right they did did fail to consider that right you guys cool with that let's just play for a second I want to just show you guys how things are are very um Dynamic and what do I mean by Dynamic I think things are fluid things can change right nothing set in stone you got to craft good arguments you could do arguments every day in law school I made arguments today in law school when I got called in in class right so let's just show you how arguments can morph change evolve right so the the the correct answer here says something like hey fails to consider that they would have worsened let's strengthen this argument so let's account for this flaw how would we do it do you guys want to play around with this for a second come up with any fact in the world let's let's keep it similar to what this Anroid says let's not fail to consider let's actually consider this so what should we say as a premise we can kind of insert what do you think so we insert a premise what can we say here how about this um certain let's say pieces of plastic um would have been the same regardless of times right something like that would strength in this argument right because he's the author is now saying oh I am considering the condition right or that the conditions would would have worsen right um or what if the author just said this like hey uh yo these conditions um would not have worsened uh even more without these regulations right cool with that and it's kind of like I know it's just like rephrasing the answer choice but essentially yeah I mean like that's what it is right so if this author could just like stick this in like right wherever trying to think where he could put this in he puts in like right here and just says like hey by the way right um things are just going to keep getting bad right um there we go right he's like I am considering this all right you guys cool with this so far so arguments can change you got to see how things can strengthened as well all right cool with this arguing the opposite of the conclusion the most important thing you're ever going to do in logical reasoning let me make sure I don't show the answer for the next all right good let's go through this one now we know this is going to be another flaw question um and these answer choices look kind of simple which is good because you're not getting tested on these answer choices like can you read these answers well some of these answers are like eight words long you're not getting tested on that you're getting tested on on this you're not going to test on the question the question sounds simple as well so can you translate the stimulus and can you find out the logical flaw all right so there's going to be a flaw here let's go through it by the way there is still a reading test and I want to point this out this is how crazy this test is written it's one of the most impressive tests you're ever going to seen your life all right you guys ready to jump in all right let's go through on the first day of trout season a team of biologists went with local trout Anglers to the maab river all right so some biologists and some fishermen go up to a river together probably to study some trout each angler so that's a fisherman who caught at least two trout chose exactly two of these trout for the biologist to weigh okay so the fishermen are like I'm going to pick which trout I got a bunch of trout go ahead and weigh these ones right gives them two a total of 90 fish were weigh all right all right the measurements show I don't like this off the bat the measurements don't show anything they don't show um and I don't I always want to fight back with all these conclusions right I don't buy this right what do they show what do these measurements show they show nothing I don't care if they're going to say like what's the average weight of these trout how often these trout be shown right because I'm I'm going to try to find the flaw all right so uh let's look through these real quick um so the measurements show that at the beginning of the season the average trout in the mobra river weighed approximately 1.6 kilograms okay so here's the conclusion no freaking way right they weigh 1.6 kilos what's the flaw I want you guys to think for yourself for a second go find what was the like stupid scientific method that these guys fail to do they're bosses the of the the bosses of the biologist would like chew them out for doing this uh hold on Alex wait wait one second and then I'll I'll get to you I feel like you have the answer just like the scientific method y see you think you see it no you don't see it okay Alex let's see if you can uh wrap this up so what's what's the flaw what's the what's the stupid scientific method these guys are doing I think it's I think sorry I think I think it's wrong now this this was my thinking was that is when it says each angler who caught at least two fish yes that's the it's like you're only getting people that are good at fishing okay amazing uh that's not the flaw but that actually was something that that piqued my interest too I was like Hey like um that's also another flaw good yassi what else is wrong with this um we're assuming that this sample represents the entire good good right um and Alex that's something you kind of talked about too right like hey like what these guys are just super good at fishing like they know where all the fat fish are going to be right I mean 1.6 kgrs that's a fat fish um it's heavy but they may maybe they know how to like cast this reel right but most likely it's what well these Anglers got to pick which ones to weigh right so what if these Anglers or these fishermen are just like hey you take the big ones man take the big ones right they don't want to show off the small ones or the baby ones right right what about this what if they they come up with a new uh fact and you might not know this because you're not a you guys are probably both not fishermen I'm not either but what if they show up a new fact and this would be the correct answer I just want to show you how Dynamic you have to be on this test um what if it says like hey in oh sorry that's my little confusing hey in early spring only babies um or sorry in early um they only say season in the early season of fishing at the M River there are only baby trouts that bite on fish hopes how does that how is that um affecting this argument is that it makes the argument dumb right but how does that affect it and and the weight necessarily yes thank go ahead we're assuming that all the fish that were caught were just baby trout yeah so like that that'd be a problem right if they're all baby trout at the beginning of the season right we know that's when we're catching all these but like what if they're all baby trouts does that show a representative sample no right because we might have bigger trap right that are going to Bight on this stuff and what can we what can we like safely assume about baby babies and adults whether it's fish or men or women probably babies are going to weigh a lot less right okay I think that's a safe assumption by the way that you can jump on um but anyways they're not going to give you this fact I think it's just kind of funny um but they might give you that on the answer choices and then you might have to say oh it's a weakener right this is a flaw right um so this could be easily be a weaken question on the question St and you do all your stuff you're like Dean I'm following your method I'm translating I'm finding the conclusion um I'm asking I'm I'm saying like what's the premises what's the conclusion I'm arguing the opposite I get through this stuff and the the answer is just not jumping out to me well they might give you this answer and they might say hey I want to see you know Alex can you see that answer is e if I plug this in here is a weakener and then you have to say sure elat that's a weakener that's the great answer right that would destroy it babies weight all those things all right very Dynamic test um okay but let's go back to it right we said this was not a representative sample right not representative sample I misspelled that horribly uh I'm not going to change it not representative sample why because uh fishermen were picking and choosing which fish two way right that's the flaw that's the correct answer um let's go through the answer choices a uh hold on makes a generalization from a sample that is unlikely to be representative yep that's the correct answer right uh let's look at B real quick um all right uh let's look at B relies on evidence that is antidotal rather than scientific nope we did rely on scientific evidence it was just dumb scientific evidence just screw SC it up right um antidotal what does this mean if you're at home get used to seeing this this word on the lside a lot this just means like a story right antidote is like a story um all right C we know all the rest of these are wrong but let's look at C ignores the variations in weight that are likely to occur over the whole season let's talk about this why is this answer Choice wrong I'm going to give you a hint and it has to do with the conclusion and it has to do um with what I have highlighted right here so go ahead and look at this is what are we arguing in this comp conclusion I'm going to erase some of these other things for us what's wrong with this go ahead Alex what's up uh you're talking specifically about measurements about the beginning of the Season correct right we're talking about the beginning of the season right do we care about the whole season no not at all okay good job this is a read test all right I guarantee a lot of people pick C in fact C is probably the most chosen wrong answer for that reason because people like oh yeah wait you were trying to say the whole season right um let's look at D fails to take in account measurements from the same time in previous Seasons again this is out because of that same reason right do we care about previous Seasons no we're talking about the beginning of the season right we're not talking about those other things uh e does not consider whether any fish other than trout were caught again reading test what were we measuring we measuring fish or we measuring just trout we were measuring just trout average trout we're measuring other fish right any other fish um so this would be out let's see if Dean's correct let's see if C is the most show the wrong answer um because of that reason right I think a lot of people people probably pick this because that whole season like yeah that would be a flaw that would be a flaw if the conclusion was different right if the conclusion talked about that stuff and C is the most treasure wrong answer you look at this little gray shaded area right here um if you look at this gray shaded area this shows you how many people picked it so a lot of people picked a right d was the least chosen wrong answer all right questions on this guys all all right cool all right let's keep moving forward um let's make some progress all right so arguing arguing arguing most important part um I want to go with oops you guys wen't supposed to see that but it's okay um all right let's go to the jewel one okay um Jewel as in not the Vape all right let's go through this um and let's go through it all right um Jewel collectors fearing that their eyes will be deceived by a counterfeit will not buy a diamond unless the dealer guarantees that it is genuine okay so a lot of stuff going on what do Jewel collectors must have what's must be important I want to focus on this so Jewel collectors what do they want want uh a guarantee right guarantee of gen right he get a contract law you're be like yeah of course right I want a guarantee of genuiness right um why well because of their eyes right and I'm also the same way I'm like I can't tell you the difference between a ruby and a fake Ruby um okay Co with this guys all right but um but why should a counterfeit give any less aesthetic pleasure when the naked eye cannot distinguish it from a real diamond okay now you guys are like obviously like that sounds really dumb right because you're paying all this money for a real freaking diamond right and maybe just maybe what's this new idea um in this conclusion we talk Talking I mean this might be the intermediate conclusion but what's new here the aesthetic pleasure right um and so you would say Dean I don't buy jewelry because of purely aesthetic reasons and that's probably true right probably also Investments right um so I would say like hey aesthetic so this is the flaw what's the flaw the correct flaw um bails oops fails to consider that aesthetic pleasure is I would say like the only important consideration when buying jewelry right strong strong language but I think it's Justified here um what's another way of saying this we could say something like this we could say uh fails to consider that there are other reasons for buying jewelry besides aesthetic pleasure now obviously Dean would probably prefer answer choices to look like this this is still a correct answer okay everyone see that these are both correct answers but one of these is worded a little softer right because they don't have the word only that only is a little strong Right Here Right but it's still correct yeah Alex all right I just have a question is it supposed to be um fails to consider that aesthetic pleasure is not the only oh yeah is not the only correct good job look at this lawyer over here is not the only sorry I get too quick is not the only important consideration when buying jewelry yes that is totally true and then look at the other answer fails to consider that there are other reasons yeah these are both these both could be correct answers you have to make that judgment call all that even though this one is is too is very strongly worded it's still nonetheless correct all right all right questions on this guys okay all right you guys can rewatch them if you need to um so let's go back to this let's go back to this um and then we get to the main conclusion right here um both Jewels should be deemed of equal value you're like hey hell no right because let's talk the premises and the conclusions this is a good opportunity to look at the gaps premise what are the premises um aesthetic oh let's just say can't tell differences between um diamonds because I would say like um I'm to say like and give same aesthetic pleasure um by the way I don't know about that but I'm not GNA attack that I'm not like I don't think I think a real diamond probably glitters a lot nicer you can probably tell some difference but anyways we're just running along with it and then what's the conclusion here um we have this equal value idea right did we ever talk about value what how how jewelry gets valued no we didn't right um people have weird ways of valuing things right U maybe it's sentimental jewelry is definitely sentimental Al so that's a different value um maybe it's an investment right and that's a different value than just having a fake diamond versus a real diamond right um so this whole equal value thing I don't buy it um let's attack this conclusion both Jewels should not be deemed of equal value all right come up here and now we're doing the opposite right I call this negate the conclusion negate just means opposite um both both Jewels should not be deemed of equal value and then we'll go into our wh ifs right because what if um we are buying jewelry for reasons other other than aesthetic pleasure right everyone see this is probably the correct answer okay yeah right just makes sense right um what if we're buying them for Investments right things like that so probably the correct answer right here all right um I'm G to put a little check mark next to it all right all right let's go through these answer choices and let's go from there all right wish the following principles if valid most helps to justify the reasoning above oh no this sounds like a strengthen question right but this isn't that hard we just have to kind of take the opposite of what we just came up with and it's not hard at all all it's very natural I I don't want you guys to worry about it but the whole thing I told you about if you object to the argument correctly and you find the flaw it will be related to the answer somehow shape or form okay um so so what is um the opposite of this explanation we have dear with the check well we know that this is a good objection right because what if we are buying jewelry for reasons other than aesthetic pleasure well let's just take the opposite of that fact so let's take the opposite here um give me one second I'm G to draw real quick let's take the opposite and what's the opposite of this this fact a someone help me out with this the opposite is we buy jewelry for aesthetic pleasure yeah only aesthetic pleasure pleasure right you guys see that see how that's the opposite um what about this what if I say only aesthetic Delight yeah that's probably the same thing so we buy jewelry only for aesthetic Delight that's a strengthener right that's cool with this all right so race that this is what I want the answer twist to look like everyone spotting this we buy jewelry only for aesthetic Delight yeah need answer to say something like that right that would be strengthening um what if it said something like this though like what if it's not that obvious you're like Dean it's never going to be that obvious I'm like yeah it might not be right you're correct um let's come up with another one where the correct answer will look like um we like buying jewelry mainly for um aesthetic reasons yeah that's the correct answer too right I just think the first one's a little stronger right only aesthetic light and here's a fun fact you should probably kind of know this by now but we like strength and a weaken questions that have strong answers right we we're trying to strengthen this conclusion we're tear down completely right um but either of these answers will work all right and we can come up with more things like we get even more like nuanced than these we could say something like hey um people generally don't buy by jewelry or Investments or sentimental value now this is a little different than what we just talked about right but doesn't this strengthen it in like kind of like an indirect way yeah it does right it's indirectly strengthening it um this conclusion because we objected about this we're like hey what about these things and we're like nope these things are not happening right this is getting closer and closer to saying what getting really close to saying closer to saying we like aesthetic only right guys see that over here so saying this people generally don't buy jewelry for Investments or sentimental value is a very indirect way of saying and getting closer to saying hey we like aesthetic only which would help out this conclusion a ton right yeah value them the same now you're not going to trick me I am not buying a fake diamond for anything um someone tried to sell me a fake Rolex the other day and I was like I was like oh man I like your watch he's like yeah thanks man he will not be named and I was like oh it's a Rolex I was like that's nice he's like yeah he's like you want to buy it I was like dude I don't I don't have like $10,000 he's like no no no don't worry it's fake I'll set to you for like two three hund bucks I was like what not buying a fake Rolex right corny first off um and was he doing it for aesthetic Delight probably do I want it for aesthetic Delight no Dean wants to buy a Rolex for an investment um no it's a bad investment but um I don't want it I don't want a fake Rolex right um but anyways he was all in that aesthetic Delight crap all right um let's go through these uh anyways all right let's go through a so which one of these is going to strengthen you um all right a jewel collector should collect only those jewels that provide the most aesthetic pleasure does this have anything to do with how we value things no right I get it is strong but this is like saying like Jewel collectors should collect more blue Jewels than red jewels and purple Jewels like what this is what we call irrelevant talk about this in a minute B the value of a jewel should depend at least okay I like we're at least talking about the value of the jewel right we're not talking about like what you should have in your box of collections um should depend at least partly on market demand I don't know how market demand has to do with anything we're talking about aesthetic values or sorry we're talking about aesthetic pleasure and value this is not bridging that Gap right I don't care what the market demand does and this doesn't help me like how do I how does this help me like value this if the market demand do we know anything about market demand today no it's out this is also irrelevant but it was closer you picked B I'd be happier than a all right C it should not be assumed that everyone who likes diamonds receives the same degree of aesthetic pleasure from them but let's translate this so you shouldn't assume that everyone freaking loves diamonds or kind of likes diamonds or some people people are like kind of indifferent about diamonds what does that have to do with like how much people get off by having a diamond on their you know finger whatever um who cares right translate it again another irrelevant answer all right let's look at D the value of a jewel okay we're getting closer I love it because we're talking about what in the conclusion the new idea value the value of a jewel should derive solely from the aesthetic pleasure it provides yes this Bridges the Gap right and look at this this Bridges the gap which was aesthetic and I'm gonna put it here the P the P God dang was the aesthetic aesthetic Delight I swear I had law school today okay come here break the premise was the aesthetic Delight the conclusion was the value right we bridged that Gap right and if you look right here this is the correct answer we predicted it a million years ago right right here we buy jewelry for only aesthetic Delights right this bridges that Gap beautiful D is the correct answer okay now let's read e um hopefully it's wrong Jewel collectors should not buy counterfeit Jewels okay unless they're able to distinguish counterfeit jewels from real ones does it matter um does that have anything to do with valuing anything no right um so this is another irrelevant answer okay let's talk real quick any any questions on this guys at all no I know pretty self-explanatory I like beat the dead horse um okay so if we go back we see this aesthetic pleasure was in the premises we have this value idea idea um in the conclusion that's our Gap that's what we're focusing on and that's what we're punching or targeting uh when we're doing uh these arguments okay um cool let's just talk about answer types I'm a big I'm a big guy on like answer types big answer type guy uh I think studying answers are super important um so let's look at this horribly drawn Circle and let me show you what answers are going to show up in strength and weaken questions because this is a strengthen question um so you're gonna have three answer types and let me show you what they're going to look like first you have the irrelevant answer which all these were uh irrelevant all right then you have the weaken answer if there was a weaken answer here today that would have been Incorrect and lastly you have the strengthen answer um which is great all right um so for today's purposes we know that we needed the strengthen answer so we needed this right this was going to be the correct answer great but some days it's going to be different right some days we're going to look and we're going to be like hey we need the weaken answer great um are we ever going to need the irrelevant answer no right irrelevant is irrelevant all right um now let me show you something fun to do this is like changing your brain remember how I said we have to be fluid we have to be dynamic um well can we take this answer Choice D which is a strengthener and can we turn it into a weakener can we do a Frankenstein like that uh heck yeah we can let me show you um okay so let's take this strengthener right here and let's transform it we're going to do like a little bit of magic and then we're going to turn it into a weakener all right hold on one second bear with me all right and then we're going to turn it into a weakener okay because we're just going to do what we call taking the opposite now the opposite of a bad fact is a good fact the opposite of a good fact is a bad fact you don't really write that down it's pretty obvious right um so let's go through this what is the opposite of Interest d uh the value of a oh let me put this in different form sorry um let's put this in a red because we're going to try to weaken it the value of a jewel should not derive solely from aesthetic pleasure right that would be oh gosh dang it that would be a a weakener right so if I said the value of a jewel should not derive solely from the s aesthetic and this just kind of sounds like what we're objecting to All Night Long right we're just objecting to this all night long this is what we're saying so this could be the correct answer if it was a weaken question they can change it around just like that right just taking the opposite of this and we can change it around now good question you're asking Dean what about about the irrelevant answer choices what can we do with those uh nothing but this is still a good litmus test or say lus test it's like these things you used to do in science remember this where you like put it in the paper and you can tell if it was like sus or not sus right that's what we're doing today um and so we're going to see so all these answer choices were irrelevant um so if we go here we look at this um so Jewel collectors should collect only uh the ones that have the most aesthetic pleasure uh what's the opposite of this in a um and it should be pretty obvious and it's also going to be uh wrong so the opposite of this is saying uh Jewel collectors should not collect only jewels that give pleasure right that's the opposite the opposite of an irelevant fact is you guessed it still irrelevant right so it's a good test to say like if you're between like a and D negate them see if they do anything when you flip them all right go ahead and write that down so when you're between two two answers negate them both right you can try this test out it's a fun test to play out with um and it really shows you what you're working with right and your correct answer should be the opposite right so if you're trying to find a strengthener you plug it in it should do the opposite you should you should see some kind of move right Alex what's your question what's up allor right I was just wondering when when would you not just be able to just add the word not to the to the thing good question so you that's a judgment call you got to be able to um find logical opposites now you want to hear a fun fact no no other elsat tutor has ever told you this um how do you throw in the knot it's a hard thing to do sometimes is that kind of what you're asking too well it's just I I don't necessarily see like a time when you wouldn't be able to just put knot in oh um let's flip through some of these real quick um okay so the knot is really hard to put in sometimes um oh good question um there are some some opportunities where you can um generally I would say probably about 85% you're going to throw a knot or take away a knot right or the negative right um so if someone says like here's an example where um you won't so it says like hey um conclusion or let's just say answer Choice it doesn't matter answer choice right um we should almost sounds like it um good question [Music] um good question I'm gonna have to come back to you on that because like every example I can think of on the top of my head I can't think of an answer Choice um anyways let me tell let me show you something way more important than that all right because it's a good question but not get really familiar with the word not okay how do you throw in the word not where do you put it because you're like Dean you're a magician you just kind of know where to put it well first things first I want you to just just make the sentence make sense out loud as if you're talking two you want the English hack this is like this is like the real hack right here put it put the not after the r slash is in the SYM okay number two is really the hack so put it after the not put it after the put it after the r is in the sentence um so uh the value of the je should let's look at in's be the value of ju Jewel should not depend okay that's pretty obvious um let's look at some other ones um should after should would be an obvious way um again we have another should not um it should be assumed okay so should should be assumed these are all shoulds um but you're gonna see answer choices like this let me come up with one just for us right now um so saying something like uh bananas are the healthiest fruit you can eat where would you put this after the r bananas are not the healthiest for you kiding right very simple little tricky again this is an LSAT skill yes Yi no question just stretching the good old hand right I remember being in class and like professors would be like oh you're stretching I'm like yeah I'm just stretching man chill out all right all right cool all right questions on this anybody um okay what was the correct answer D great um should be pretty obvious right uh we obliterated that one but is it more important to just get questions correct or is it more important to like kind of like understand test it's more important to understand the test um seeing how things change and seeing how things move around seeing how they can like change this question to like five other questions they can make this a necessary assumption a sufficient assumption a flaw a weaken a strengthen they can change it into all five of those it's so easy to morph them so you got to get into that skill of being able to do those things um okay I'm going to stop sharing screen hello all right um so anyways you guys can review the lesson you want to run through uh those variables that we talked about uh when we're going through a logical reasoning stimulus on the famous 5 Neary assumption sufficient assumption we can strengthen flaw the other things we got to do um is we have to kind of see things we talked about today like how the test can be dynamic talking about how we need to read the conclusions very very carefully because this is a reading test above everything else um and yeah it's basically it uh we learned a little bit about strength and weeking questions today uh we learned about language strength and answer choices like strength and weaken questions need strong language like really heavy language flaw questions and necessary assumption questions in very soft language right very softly worded things like May might could um and those kinds of things all right um all right good luck on elsat studying um I'm going to stop the recording now and all right