The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express

Stefani on November 10, 2017


How come we did not write out an "and/or" diagram for "By that period, however, Greek cities all had marketplaces, or agorae."


Mehran on November 13, 2017

Hi @slew. It's because this is not an either/or sentence. It's not "either marketplaces or agorae." It's "marketplaces, otherwise known as agorae." Hope that helps!

Jasherrell on January 7, 2018

Also, how come the sentence, "the cities' agorae were centrally located and goods were traded there either for money or for commodities." is not diagrammed as an either/or sentence?

Mehran on January 13, 2018

Good question. It has to do with the syntax of the sentence. In this case, the either/or does not operate to set up a disjunction. Put another way, the sentence does not establish that "money or commodities" are alternative sufficient or necessary conditions.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

Denzel on June 1, 2018

for example #1 I don't understand how you got your answer? it has white flowers but lacks fuzzy seedpods. Need better explanations please

Denzel on June 1, 2018

The way you're setting up these examples with the s & N and contrapositive is confusing me for some reason

Christopher on June 6, 2018

There are multiple layers of logic here that you must keep in mind to be able to answer the question.

First, Fuzzy Seeds always have Long Stems and never have White Flowers. Or diagrammed: FS ==> LS & not WF. The contrapositive of which is: WF or Not LS ==> not FS. So if a plant has white flowers or does not have a short stem, it cannot have Fuzzy Seeds.

Second, Curled Leaves always have White Flowers: CL ==> WF. Contrapositive: Not WF ==> Not CL.

Thirdly, Thorny Seedpods always have Curled Leaves: TS ==> CL. Contrapositive: Not CL ==> Not TS.

Finally, you're given the FACTS that Plant X has a Long Stem and Curled Leaves.

So looking at the rules that mention Curled Leaves, we know that Curled Leaves must have White Flowers (Rule 2). We also know that they CAN have Thorny Seedpods (Rule 3). Thorny Seedpods require Curled Leaves, but the opposite is not true.

Rule 1 deals with Long Stems by saying that they Fuzzy Seeds require a Long Stem but no White Flowers. Since the plant has Curled Leaves and therefore White Flowers, we can conclude that plant X cannot have Fuzzy Seeds.

It may or may not have Thorny Seedpods, but we can't know that with the information given, so (A) and (B) are out.

It must have White Flowers, so (E) is out.

It cannot have Fuzzy Seeds, and there is not enough information to know about Thorny Seedpods, so (D) is out.

Leaving (C) which accurately concludes that the plant must have White Flowers (based on rule 2) and cannot have Fuzzy Seeds (based on rule 1).

Hope that helps.

Bianca on June 13, 2018

This is just a general question by the way, so nothing specific when it comes to a particular question.

As I get further along through the course (I am watching the videos, and working more from the book by the way, then online). But it is obvious that sufficient and necessary terms are used a lot. My question is, my setups for these types of questions are taking me so long, that I know timing is going to kill me. Is there any way that I don't have to do the whole set up, but still get the correct answer? It seems like it is almost impossible to do so many setups basically for every question. Or is it a obvious answer like it will come as I get more practice?


Christopher on June 15, 2018

Writing out the setup each time is good for practice, but some of these questions will get obvious enough with time that you won't need to write them out. By the time I got to my final attempt at the LSAT, I only wrote out a few full setups on the harder questions, as I'd gotten to the point that a lot of questions were obvious. It's a good drill, and you should be able to write them out for each question, but by the time you're comfortable with the test, you're not going to need to write out each part on every question.

Denzel on June 19, 2018

I am having problems with the missing drills flashcards. on some of them I get correct but for the most part I don't really understand how the set up is suppose to go. Is there a better way for me to understand or do I need to watch the video again?

Christopher on June 21, 2018

Reviewing the video can help, but practicing real questions can help a lot too. For me, at least, too much time on flash cards made it harder for me to understand the practical side and not just the theoretical. It takes practicing both.

Peter on July 28, 2018

I'm really having trouble with the missing premise questions. Can someone help me?

Kristen on August 17, 2018

I also don't understand missing premise. I watched the video but I don't even understand where that was explained in the video.

Denzel on August 23, 2018

Okay so I took the sufficient and Necessary questions and I didn't do so well. For most of these questions it was sections that I haven't reviewed yet like flaw questions, pattern, must not be true, and must be true. I understand why I got some of the questions wrong except for (Flaw and pattern) but how do I apply S&N towards it because it would seem like a lot of time to diagram out every single passage and question. Especially on the flaw pattern of reasoning questions.

Mehran on August 24, 2018

Hey there. As explained throughout the thread above, practice is key here. You are right that, especially at first, diagramming S&N questions will take a lot of time. But this is why successful LSAT students spend some time doing untimed practice to develop and quicken core skills (like diagramming). Over time, you will not only be able to accurately diagram more quickly, but you will likely also find that you don't need to diagram except on the hardest questions. At first, however, it's very important to spend the time and practice accurate diagramming, without worrying too much about how long it's taking you. Practice will help you get faster while maintaining accuracy. Hope this helps! Best of luck.

Melissa on September 29, 2018

Hi there. In example 2, how come you dont diagram the contrapositives for answer choice: BCDE, like you do for option A.

Lauren on October 23, 2018


Scott on December 27, 2018

For Example Question #4, although it is irrelevant to the answer choices, why does the last sentence not introduce a S/N condition? (Either for goods or commodities)... For future reference.... thanks in advance.

Ravi on December 27, 2018


Great question.

Answer A contains the exact same contrapositive argument structure that we see in the stimulus. From this, we know that this answer choice is our answer.

In the video, Mehran does not walk through the others likely because we have already found an answer with an identical argument structure the one in the stimulus. For the remaining answer choices, we don't necessarily need to write out the contrapositives to see that their argument structures do not match the argument structure in the stimulus.

When you're taking the test, it is a good practice to write out the contrapositives of arguments to give you greater clarity for answering questions. However, once you have identified an answer choice that matches exactly what you're looking for, you don't want to spend too much time confirming that the other answers are wrong, as this can eat up precious time that might be more useful for you on challenging questions in the section that require more time for you to answer.

Does this help? Let us know if you have more questions!


Did you have a question? All I'm seeing in your message is the word "test." Let us know if there's something we can help you with on this problem!

@the person who asked about example question #4,

The last sentence introduces facts that are intended to distract you from the inference of

MS - >MP
/MP - >/MS

The last sentence tells us that Greek cities' marketplaces were centrally located and that goods were traded there for either money or for commodities.

In this sentence, there is no wording that denotes sufficient and necessary conditions. The types of words to look out for are words like all, any, every, if, the only, only, when, whenever, must, only if, then, requires, etc.

The aforementioned terms, and all terms that describe sufficient and necessary language, are strongly worded and do not provide room for exceptions. We're told that the Greek cities' agorae were centrally located, but were ALL of the Greek cities' agorae centrally located? We do not know. Additionally, We're told that goods were traded there either for money or for commodities, but were ALL goods there traded for either money or for commodities? We do not know. In other words, we do not know if there were any exceptions.

Technically, if we assumed that all of the Greek cities' agorae were centrally located, we could write

Greek city agorae - ->centrally located agorae
/centrally located agorae - >/Greek city agorae

and if we assumed that all goods at the Greek marketplaces were traded for either money or for commodities, we could write

Greek city marketplace goods - ->traded for money or traded for commodities
/traded for money and /traded for commodities - >/Greek city marketplace goods

However, note that we'd be making assumptions here since there is no conditional language in the sentence. As a result, since there is no conditional language, we do not write out sufficient and necessary conditions with this last sentence.

Does this help? Let us know if you have more questions!

Robert on May 29, 2019

also have a question in general about the sufficient and necessary methods, if we see if the question does not have any sufficient or necessary words does that mean we go to see if there are in quantifier words and if none of those would we go to the weaken or strenghtn method


step 1 argument or facts

step 2premise principle conclusion

step 3 sufficient necessary or quantifier

step 4 method of stem and eliminate answers

Robert on May 29, 2019


Ravi on May 30, 2019


Great question. You should always be on the lookout for words that
indicate sufficient and necessary conditions, as well as words that
are quantifiers, but you're thinking about things too mechanically.
That strategy won't always work, so stick the strategies that are
discussed in the video lessons.

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!

Robert on May 30, 2019

im still getting stuck on the conclusion part versus the answer choices, whether to make it into a sufficient equation and then to make the premise into a one also then to compare it against the answers , very lost

Ravi on May 31, 2019

@sigmajonez14, It sounds like you might be thinking about the test too mechanically. Focus on reading the stimulus and concentrate on what it's saying. Most times, you don't need to diagram, but diagramming can help while you're familiarizing yourself with certain concepts. Also, this stuff takes time to learn, so continue to review the curriculum and video lessons (and revisit them a second or third time, as it will help to reinforce concepts).

Robert on June 3, 2019

okay still having trouble with breaking down the stimulus and irrelevant answers and

are we trying to weaken or strengthen the sufficient part of the conclusion

Ravi on June 3, 2019

@sigmajonez14, when you say "the sufficient part of the conclusion," I'm not understanding what you're referring to, as there isn't a sufficient part of a conclusion. In strengthen and weaken questions, you're either strengthening or weakening the argument, which is the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

Robert on June 4, 2019

Or as to the part of the conclusion that must be weakened or strengthen by the answer choice

Such as this question
Most nutritionist recommended eating fish twice a week. Eating tilapia fillets is a perfect choice for those who want the benefits of eating fish but do not care about the taste of fish. Tiliaplia fillets lack the strong fishy taste that many people find objectionable.

If true most seriously weakens the advertisements arguement?

A. Eating more than the recommended amount of fish can cause toxins that are present in high concentrations in many varieties of fish to accumulate in a persons body

B. Tilipia are invasive species that crowd our native species of fish in lakes throughout the world

C. Tilapia fillets contain little of the beneficial fish oils that are the main reason nutritionist recommend by most nutritionist

D. Most people who do not care for the taste of fish eat less than is recommended by most nutritionist

E people who rarely or never eat fish usually dislike any food with a strong fishy taste

Preptest 81-83

I would look at the conclusion from the stimulus
Conclusion- most nutritionist recommend eating fish twice a week
Then go against the answer choices that either strengthens or irrelevant

I would choose d ?

Ravi on June 4, 2019


For the question you provided, you did not correctly identify the
conclusion. The conclusion is that eating tilapia fillets is a perfect
choice for those who want the benefits of eating fish but do not care
for the taste of fish.

The sentence you cited as the conclusion is actually one of the
argument's premises. The other premise is the last sentence, which
states that tilapia fillets lack the strong fishy taste that many
people find objectionable.

The argument is basically trying to convince us that eating tilapia
will provide someone with the benefits of eating fish without the bad
fish taste. We know that tilapia fillets lack the very fishy taste
that lots of people like and we also know that nutritionists recommend
eating fish twice per week.

We're trying to weaken this argument. One key thing to note is that
the argument states that we can get the benefits (nutrition) without
the negative (bad taste) by eating tilapia fillets. How can we weaken
this? Well, one way would be to provide evidence that states that one
can't have the nutritious benefits without the bad taste (the
nutrition and the bad taste are tied together). There could be other
ways, too.

You picked (D). (D) says, "Most people who do not care for the taste
of fish eat less fish than is recommended by most nutritionists."

We're looking to weaken the argument, and that's best done by finding
evidence about tilapia that makes it less likely to be healthy or less
likely to be tasty or have a non-fishy taste. (D) has nothing to do
with tilapia, and it doesn't weaken the argument.

(C) says, "Tilapia fillets contain little of the beneficial fish oils
that are the main reason nutritionists recommend eating fish

(C) is a great, as it tells us that the tilapia fillets have very
little of the good fish oils that are the main reason that
nutritionists recommend eating fish often. So, even if the fillets
don't have a really fishy taste, (C) tells us that someone is not
likely to get the same health benefits by eating tilapia vs. eating
another type of fish that tastes really fishy. (C) weakens the
argument, so it's the correct answer choice.

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any more questions!

Robert on June 7, 2019

how would I know if something is a principle

Victoria on June 8, 2019

Hi @sigmajonez14

Generally, questions that are asking you about a principle will use the word ' principle' in the question stem. This identifies right away that you should be looking for a principle somewhere in the passage.

A principle is a general rule which serves to guide behaviour or reasoning. These statements are generally quite broad and suggest a rule which should be followed when faced with a certain scenario or dilemma.

Hope this is helpful! Let us know if you need anymore clarification or tips!

Tony on February 9, 2021

Hi Test Max team, for the question re: democracy functioning well -> electorate is moral & intelligent, can you explain more in detail why C is correct? I guessed it right based on POE, but what kinda threw me off was that it says "not moral & intelligent." I was expecting to see "not moral OR intelligent." Wouldn't the AND make it something different? I know you only need one of them to be sufficient, it's just not super clear from the way the author wrote the sentence.

Victoria on May 7, 2021

Hi there,

Happy to help!

You are correct that the contrapositive of the statement is "if the electorate is not moral or not intelligent, then the democracy will not function well."

I agree that the way the answer choice is written is confusing. As it is a bit ambiguous, I think the answer choice could be read in two ways, either of which would still make it the correct answer choice.

Option 1 - the author intends the "not" to encompass both moral and intelligent

"If the electorate is not moral and not intelligent, then a democracy will not function well."

We know that if the electorate is not moral OR if the electorate is not intelligent, then a democracy will not function well. This answer choice is correct because we know that the electorate does not meet either of these conditions; therefore, the democracy cannot function well.

Option 2 - the electorate is not moral, but the electorate is intelligent

This interpretation is still correct because we know that the electorate only needs to be not moral OR not intelligent for the democracy to not function well.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Anokhi on June 3 at 11:39PM

How can you just switch the "And" to an "Or" for question number 5, without reversing and negating for option C. I don't understand the getting of the answer.