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.