- Joined
- Sep 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
But, the question gives us the opportunity to assume the answer is true. "If true .. . .."
To answer this question it appears that I must assume that honored government employees are may be treated harshly?
For if honored government employees are all not treated harshly then why not C?
In light of how long and difficult it is to read this long stim and all the answers, I'm thnking when I see EXCEPT I should flag and return only if I have time. ?
My problem was that I dont agree that something that is not right is not, necessarily, wrong. Does the LSAT require that we not believe that something wrong can be anything other than not right and that something right can be something other than not wrong?
I got the answer by just reading Sam. Every choice except for A was neither supported nor not supported. Should I try that generally for these questions? I now that for RC S7 has recommended splitting.
Not sure I understand why the conclusion cant be "But massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science." In which case D looks better
Usually we in a necessary type question like this we are urged to negate each assumption and if that destroys the argument then is found to be "required." That doesnt seem to work here.
Also, would this be a good quesiton to skip in favor of going back to check flagged questions?
One can only choose B by assuming that XTX in the dump is equivalent to XTX in the environment. Would that still be a "dump for hazardous waste."
I still think it's B because the contra would be younger trees reproduce the most and younger trees would then be more common leaving the older trees as the least common, rarest. I dont see that one can eliminate it by saying that trees is not the same as "trees of the species."
As for E: what if what if the common trees have more competition. That wouldn't effect them if they reproduced less and each tree had a greater share.
In D if we could thereby create more suitable farmland then that wwould negate "large areas of farmland going out of production each year" and that is one of the premises for the conclusion.
strategy for above situation
E would be D's "evidence" if Garber actually presented evidence that there was a "reasonable ROI" on the $11,000 bulb. --> Garber did not.
I picked C because to me "new forms of Western discourse" has to be "other oral story telling."
I picked A because I was looking at the second part of the first sentence and thought it would be wrong if, in fact these were products the people actually needed to satisfy there desires.