Subscription pricing
PT12 S1 Q24- I Have no idea how the writers of the test came up with this answer. I lack understanding of why C is wrong. (I purposely left out the answer just in case someone wanted to do it on their own first.)
PT14 S4 Q9- I Just plain out do not understand how to approach this question. can someone explain?
PT9 S2 Q22- Does the answer to this question rely on the distinction between the term "city-wide" and "city residents" or is there something I am not seeing?
PT11 S4 Q19- I got the answer to this question right, but only because of POE, but I want to know why this answer is right. Can someone please assist me in articulating why this answer is right?
0
6 comments
wow, I can not believe I did not see what the lsat authors were trying to do for 9/2/22. This was such an easy question,and here I am caught up nit picking details that were so irrelevant. As for 11/4/19 I figured it was trying to say that, thanks for the confirmation.
@coreyjanson479.janson35 @poonage65146 @coreyjanson479.hopkins I really appreciate you guys always taking the time to answer my questions, tell me how it really is, and give me pointer. I value and appreciate all your advice. You guys are great, Thank you.
11/4/19:
What are clinical trials? Tests of innovations to prove effectiveness/safety. The conclusion is that they should be used for testing surgical techniques because their effectiveness depends solely on the skill of the performing surgeon.
But what if a technique is just based on bad science and the recommendations for how to perform it are questionable? Then it would be good, before the technique was applied on a large scale basis, for tests to either confirm or disprove its safety. This would be especially true for a technique that ended up being really harmful to patients because of inevitable complications that could have been caught in a clinical trial.
This is pretty much what A says. The effectiveness of a procedure may not depend entirely on the physician, it may be inherent harmful. If this is the case, then the conclusion that clinical trials shouldn't be implemented would be dubious at best.
9/2/22:
This is actually one of my favorite questions! The politician says that due to their leadership fewer people are unemployed, which means that unemployment went down. BUT, he said that unemployment has increased just 2 sentences before! It increased by less than 20%, but that's still an increase in the number of people employed. What decreased is the percentage increase in unemployment. That's why answer choice D is correct.
14/4/9:
P1: STP-->NC
CP: C-->/STP
P2: UE-->/STP
------------------------------------
C: C-->UE
So, they built an improper conditional chain by reversing the second premise. That is the flaw. To show that the conclave does not hold we would have to show that it is not the case that /STP-->UE (the reversed premise they used to build the chain of C-->/STP-->UE). To do this, we have to show that the sufficient occurs without the necessary. This would come in the form of both /STP AND /UE being true, which is what's found in answer choice D.
@coreyjanson479.janson35 Do you mind explaining how you went about solving this problem? I looked up several explanations and understand it now, but I am interested in the thought process.
12/1/24: conclusion--the presence of titanium can non longer be evidence to doubt the maps authenticity. Why? Because of 2 works in which they found titanium. But they also said that the studies showed there was no titanium in the "numerous other works" from that time. So there's evidence that it was used and was not used! Which is pretty much what A says. If numerous other works didn't show any traces, then maybe there is still reason to doubt the authenticity.