So without watching the explanation vid: Can I infer that we are treating what is set up in the premise as a sufficient reason for the company acting unfairly because of the phrase "perhaps they recalled"? That is Lindsey is inferring a reason for people thinking the company acted unfairly but Lindsey doesn't actually know for sure and so it could be a sufficient reason but not the only one?
I don't do too many PTs admittedly and I try to focus on drilling. Aiming for mid-170s in January LOL. Thank you guys for doing this!!
2
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
So without watching the explanation vid: Can I infer that we are treating what is set up in the premise as a sufficient reason for the company acting unfairly because of the phrase "perhaps they recalled"? That is Lindsey is inferring a reason for people thinking the company acted unfairly but Lindsey doesn't actually know for sure and so it could be a sufficient reason but not the only one?