Must Be False | LSAT Logical Reasoning

[@ravisandhu9010]

I believe there is a mistake at 5:06. Per the conditional reasoning video, the phrase following when should be placed on the left. Therefore, the conditional relationship should be IF cocktail sauce down to last bits, THEN Solomon double dips. However, in red, you have written the conditional in the reversed order.

[@ravisandhu9010]

Similarly, if you take the term only, the phrase following only should be on the right. This would give a similar structure to the conditional relationship.

[@blingbling2309]

Hey, thank you so much for your videos! I would really appreciate some feedback on the following contention I have with the contradicting a conditional example: The example about double dipping the shrimp doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Double dipping is when you dunk your shrimp into sauce, take a bite, then re-dunk that same piece of bitten shrimp with your saliva on it back into the sauce, which is why it is a practice that is generally frowned upon. That is why the stimulus says he is a polite eater because out of consideration for others and in an attempt to maintain the cleanliness of the sauce, he only dunks his bitten saliva-coated shrimp back into the sauce when there is barely any sauce left....that makes COMPLETE SENSE. From my perspective, answer C does NOT contradict anything in the stimulus; it ABSOLUTELY COULD be true. It could be, that Solomon took the fresh bowl of sauce out of the fridge and dipped TWO DIFFERENT PIECES of shrimp (..."his shrimp") in it twice, the stimulus in no way precludes this possibility. Additionally, perhaps he indeed dipped the SAME piece of shrimp in twice WITHOUT taking a bite of it in between, thus violating the very commonly understood definition of "double-dipping". In addition, it is possible that Solomon did in fact dip one piece of shrimp into the sauce, take a bite, then wait until the sauce was down to its last bits to dunk in a second time, thereby completing abiding by the principle stated in the stimulus. It is also worth nothing that "double dipping" is NOT the same as merely "dipping X in twice", the conflation of those ideas is absolutely a mistake. If this is indeed an actual stimulus from an actual LSAT question, that is very demoralizing, because understanding the correct answer lies completely at the whim of subjective interpretation.

[@felixdiego921]

InstaBlaster.

[@blingbling2309]

Also, for the actual LSAT question #19 from PT#71 that you use, my first thought was that yes A) is definitely the correct answer. But what if Bruce has a deep and desperate desire for looking ridiculous? In which case, Ann would absolutely be abiding by the principle? The assumption is that it is not in the interest of Bruce to look ridiculous...but we don't know that! If Ann knew that Bruce did not want to look ridiculous but proceeded to do what she did anyway, then that violates the principle. Act in the interest WITH knowledge of what those interests are, or act in the interest FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE of what you perceive to be of benefit to them? This distinction is of paramount importance if one is to understand the stimulus...and it is not properly elucidated. Additionally maybe Thelma actually wanted that other person to bother her in answer choice B), thus it would not be in her interest to help deny her this. Point is, it is extremely frustrating when there is room for interpretation, usually due to nebulous phraseology or word choice, because this should be a test of logic and careful reading not vocabulary and definitely not a test that has so many loose ends and such vast room for subjective interpretation

[@KKSportsKKS]

The first one is incorrect. There is a realm of possibility that Solomon goes through the entire bowl of cocktail sauce, and when he gets down to the bits he starts to double dip. Therefore it cannot be the solution to a MUST be false question. Please refrain from creating your own questions and only use official LSAT questions where mistakes like these could be avoided

[@LSATLab]

Haha, you're right that it could be logically tightened by saying "and THEN IMMEDIATELY dips twice". But you could just as easily poke holes by saying "who said that a fresh bowl of cocktail sauce can't already be down to its last bits? Maybe the person who prepared that bowl of cocktail sauce only prepared just a tiny amount that from its very inception it was already down to its last bits". Yes, both of those are technically possible, but if you think LSAT is that airtight a test, then you need to experience more LSAT. There are plenty of Must Be True questions where the correct answer still has some daylight of doubt (an exotic realm of possibility that would keep the correct answer from being 100% guaranteed). The paragraph of instructions at the outset of LR sections says that we should not introduce any of our own assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage. So refraining from picking (C) because "a fresh bowl could technically be down to its last bits" is going against a common sense interpretation of what fresh bowl means. Thinking that "takes a bowl out of the fridge and dips twice" means "takes a bowl out of the fridge and (eventually) dips twice (after taking enough single dips to get it down to its last bits)" would similarly be going against common sense. You're ultimately picking best-available answers, not perfect answers, even on questions whose task is worded to indicate perfect answers. Finally, we sometimes have to include made-up material for free public videos because LSAT only allows us to use certain tests for free public videos, and those two eligible tests don't always have every piece of LSAT content (i.e. there might not be an In/Out game on either test, so you have to make up your own / there might not be any or enough Evaluate or Must Be False questions on those two tests, so you might have to make up your own).

[@KKSportsKKS]

@@LSATLab my bad, looking back now I didn’t mean to be as rude in my comment as I came off😂. I was kind of annoyed because I immediately dismissed C as an answer because of my argument. I thought we were going to get another 2 options as I’m used to the 5 choice questions, so I was anticipating the potential D or E to be the answer. I definitely do agree C is a much better answer than A or B, and that’s what I would have went with in the scenario. Sorry about how I came off

[@LSATLab]

@@KKSportsKKS No worries. Yeah, those little warm-up examples are just to make a quick teaching point, so we aren't logically vetting them to the utmost and they aren't meant to fully resemble an LSAT question. But I have a similar brain and hate imperfectly written answers. Unfortunately, the way the test is written nowadays (especially RC in the 80s), you'll pull your hair out waiting for a perfect answer. I'm constantly grimacing when I pick certain answers (that I later find out are correct), and just reassuring myself "it's just best available. It doesn't matter if the answer is kinda wrong. You have to argue that a diff answer is better." It sucks. :)