Why would I be made to believe that spellcasters are wizards?
Are we to assume that police officers are competent at their job?
For #5: regarding the initial claim, I went like this:
Water of Life --> BG's Rituals
Thinking of WL as a subset of the things used in BG's Rituals; it appears to me that the verb "to be" ineluctably functions as a first group indicator, by that meaning that the attribute of the sentence serves the role of neccessary condition, whereas the subject serves the role of sufficient condition.
All cats ARE (to be) mammals.
C --> M
By ruling out the others, I got to A - but A makes no sense to me.
Tom's recipe is easy to follow for most people ; Tom's recipe is easy to follow for the majority of people (<50%) as opposed to the minority of people
A- Identify the entities being compared: majority of people vs non-majority of people.
B- Identify the thing being compared on: the easiness of Tom's recipe to follow for people
C- Identify the winner: Most people can follow Tom's recipe
Sorghum is not being compared here... the comparison lies between SOME CULTIVARS OF CORN and MOST OHER CULTIVARS OF CORN
The middle one was hard. Then I realized that the first claim is not the "primary justification" for it, but what follows regarding the near-maximal efficiency in farmland.
Got it right, but are we supposed to assume that flight attendants go to work more often than the average person goes to the dentist for an X-Ray? Seems like we are bringing information into the argument that is out of the scope of it.
I answered correctly. However, I would like clarification about the word "both" - does it entail none of her friends like oolong and green tea at the same time? Or does it entail that they do not like one OR the other? By this I mean, is it an exclusive or an inclusive "both"?
Why were we to assume that the placebo people got infected? I mean, why were to pressume that the tested subjects would be exposed to the disease?
1- The Disney argument is the one which offers the strongest support given that there are but two possible channels through which Walt could have obtained the Genie+ membership; it is either channel A or channel B.
2- The Tiger arguments should be in the middle given that it takes one instance or example of all mammals to explain why not every mammal is not fit for becoming a pet. Rather than addressing the reasons for which some mammals themselves are unfit for becoming pets, the author resorts to an example, which is indeed illustrative - but it falls short on giving a reason, again, on why some mammals are unfit for becoming pets.
3- The Trash argument is the weakest one because there could have been a centillion reasons why the trash bin got toppled - imagination here can roam free and we can lay out any scenario which would clear Mr. Fat Cat of any blame whatsoever.
Grass snakes are known to prey on voles. Reptiles only dwell where food can be secured. Grass snakes constitute a subset of reptiles. Therefore, if there are no voles in this field, there must not be snakes either.
I got this one right. However, I was hesitant about answer choice E. Is gross exaggeration not a misrepresentation or rather a lack of precision?
Linking ten years ahead of a position with seniority, isn't that bringing our own assumptions into the argument? Maybe a journalsit can only be called a veteran after 50 years in the same post
Hello fellow prospective attorneys. This is my first post. I am confused about which months next year it would be the most ideal to sit for the LSAT in order to gain admission in Spring 2027. I thought of doing April and June - I started studying in September.
Thanks.
So this is helpful for identifying the principle sort of questions, right?