Subscription pricing
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-17/
In BR, I realized that the proper interpretation of the occurrence of severe climatic warming (SCW) or volcanic activity (VA) was through the Inclusive "Or", which says and/or. But that would mean one of them must occur. /A-->B. However, in reading the sentence it's clear that neither of those events must happen. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I realized that the presence of "could" alters each of those ideas because we're talking about what's possible and not what occurred.
Temporary melting = TM
Could = c
TM --> SCWc or VAc
If TM, then either could happen, but neither must happen.
0
2 comments
We talked about this in depth in a BR group once. That could really shakes things up! It really changes the conditional relationship.
Glad that you were able to break this down solo, as we spent a loooong time discussing it!
Good catch. "Could" changes the game. Great example of how I'm always talking about grammar!