Does cannabis protect the aging brain—or are we watching correlation quietly turn into causation?

In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, Andrew Leahey breaks down a newly accepted study from the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs titled “Lifetime Cannabis Use Is Associated with Brain Volume and Cognitive Function in Middle-Aged and Older Adults.”

Using UK Biobank data, the study finds that lifetime cannabis use is associated with larger brain volumes in certain regions and better cognitive performance later in life.

But association is not explanation.

Applying LSAT Necessary Assumption analysis, this episode shows how scientific findings—carefully written and caveated—can be misread once assumptions about causation, directionality, and confounding factors sneak in. Learn how to spot the unstated premise holding the argument together, and why negating it causes the explanation to fall apart.

You don’t need to be studying for the LSAT to follow along—this is about learning how real-world arguments work, and where they quietly overreach.

Subscribe for more short episodes applying clean logic to messy claims.

Zaxby’s says fans are craving the return of its Southern Fried Shrimp and Giant Quesadillas—so bringing them back is a no-brainer. But what, exactly, does that claim depend on?

In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, we use a real corporate press release from Zaxbys to break down a classic LSAT skill: identifying a necessary assumption—the unstated idea an argument must rely on to work at all.

No politics, no policy. Just clean logic, marketing language, and the hidden reasoning that holds the argument together.

If you’ve ever wondered how confident claims get their persuasive force, this episode shows you where to look.

We break down a real-world opinion piece on immigration enforcement to illustrate one of the LSAT’s most fundamental skills: identifying the main conclusion of an argument.

Using a recent news column calling for the removal of a senior White House official, the episode shows how facts, narratives, and moral language can obscure the actual claim an author is trying to prove. By stripping the argument down LSAT-style, Andrew demonstrates how to separate premises from conclusions—and why confusing the two is one of the most common Logical Reasoning mistakes.

Today’s episode is about necessary assumptions — the unstated ideas an argument must rely on to reach its conclusion, even if no one ever says them out loud.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr recently said there are “legitimate competition concerns” about Netflix’s proposed $83 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. studios and HBO Max.

Here’s the twist: the FCC has no authority to review or approve the deal.

The FCC regulates broadcast licenses, which aren’t part of this transaction. But Carr made public comments anyway, raising red flags about consolidation in the streaming market. And his comments were picked up as if they had regulatory teeth.

So what’s the logical structure here — and where does it go wrong?

The story comes from a BBC report about a mushroom called Lanmaoa asiatica — native to parts of China and the Philippines — that causes remarkably consistent hallucinations of “lilliputian figures”: tiny humans marching on tabletops, climbing up walls, even clinging to your soup spoon.

These hallucinations only seem to happen when the mushroom is undercooked, and they’ve been reported across different cultures and time periods. So far, no one’s been able to identify the active compound, and researchers are still trying to explain why the visions are so consistent — both in content and duration.

Some scientists suggest that the mushroom contains a unique hallucinogen. Others point to historical accounts of “mushroom madness” in Papua New Guinea that may involve the same species. And the assumption lurking underneath much of the coverage is this:

The mushroom causes people to hallucinate tiny people.

The claim comes from Donald Trump, who has said, more than once, that tariffs made the United States the richest nation in the world.

FactCheck.org pushed back on that — pointing to economic data and broader historical context that challenges the accuracy of the statement.

But for LSAT purposes, we don’t need to resolve the economics. We’re not here to litigate macroeconomic history. We’re here to look at the logic of the claim — and that’s where things get interesting.