2 comments

  • Sunday, Aug 28 2016

    The "sizable subgroup" this ac refers to (in lawgic terms) would be /M --> /C . Which is actually the contrapositive of the scientists conclusion C --> M . But... the idea that the reporter presumes anything like there not being a "sizable subgroup" simply doesn't happen. It is totally irrelevant. What would "sizable" even constitute?

    0
  • Sunday, Aug 28 2016

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-11/

    0

Confirm action

Are you sure?