#help

The short explanation for AC c makes no sense. It states that AC c was "not answered, "the passage doesn't discuss the effect of urban migration on domestic fiction in the 1850s"

however in paragraph 2, lines 3-10 say:

we might attribute them to such historical transformations as the migration of the rural young to cities or the increasing secularization of society. But while such factors may help to explain the differences, it can be argued that these differences ultimately reflect different conceptions of the nature and purpose of fiction."

I got this right on blind review but jeez these short explanations should really be better. I have ran into this a few times now with the short lightbulb explanations being contradictory to the stim given which really stinks

BTW- on answer D.), the lightbulb/explanation in review states Enrique says that the government has “so far” been able to provide funding", which, the passage itself says: and the federal government has so far failed to provide additional funding... so there is def a mistake there!

5/5 lets gooooo

Q5 hit like a truck. Would love someone to explain that the assumption that Vale's econ doesn't predominately rely on trade is not valid as though they were explaining it to a 2 yr old.

"...in Westeros whose economies rely predominantly on trade support foreign policies that aim to secure peace. A kingdom will not support peaceable foreign policies unless it stands to benefit from the absence of war. The Vale supports peace securing foreign policies."

SO- a kingdom will NOT support peaceful foreign policy UNLESS it stands to benefit from no war.. those that benefit from no war- rely on trade in their economies, so if vale supports this peace in policy, it would mean (to me at least) that they support this bc they BENEFIT from it, if they are not benefitting from it, why would they support it? In order to benefit from it, it must positively impact their econ.. right?? is it because it can not be confirmed 100% that this is the case, i.e. could vale just not have a peaceful foreign policy because they feel its right morally and gain no benefit from it in their economy based on this stim? agh, making my head hurt. the rest made sense to me except 5.

@EmmahFields case*

I get what you are getting at here but I guess in my head its like: if None of Jacksons are non-swimmers (Jacksons all swim) and Andrew is a Jackson, he is not a non swimmer as well, thus equating to Andrew being a swimmer. I feel like sometimes negating multiple negatives cancels them out, but at least in this cause, because it says 'no jacksons are non swimmers' that equates to jacksons being all swimmer and thus Andrew too. Defintely a silly rabbit hole here but interesting to me. so does it not have the same meaning as saying andrew is a swimmer; and andrew is NOT a non-swimmer

@J.Y. Ping The group me says it is "pending" on my end

could you also say, for Question 1, that Andrew is not a non swimmer? That's where my mind went at first. Andrew is a swimmer ofc, but he could also be not a non swimmer?

I am! It'll be my first go at the LSAT. I am in

@Sameer Ahamad I thought this same thing.. I suppose the only difference lies in the indicator words,

some of these studies are not reliable

not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corp. returns on investment

That is the only way I made sense of it too, as without out the indicator word these are somewhat just statements I suppose and the whole "following logically" thing does not work as well if it is flip flopped w/out indicator words.

Still struggling with differences between A and D. I chose A and ruled out D, thinking that because Zack's free poetry is almost every Wednesday it would follow that Wednesday is the most common day that there's half-priced coffee. If anyone can break down the differences between A and D, I would appreciate it