- Joined
- Nov 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
He explained this as the experiment rule but this is simply a hypothesis. The way to strengthen it is if we remove the causal factor and the event doesnt happen. (remove heavy metals… that means that they dont have resistance to anything). This is what B does. Its not about the experiment but more about how we weaken and strengthen the hypothesis and its simply by doing the three causal rules. B says that if we remove heavy metals… bacteria is not resistant to anything. Meaning that if we have heavy metals, the bacteria does have resistance which strengthens the hypothesis/conclusion. a causes b. if A is gone and b doesnt happen that means a causes b.
okay i understand when the sentance uses the indicator "or" but what if the embedded sentences dont use "or" how are we supposed to simplify the embedded conditional. and the example he gives, to me is more of a normal conditional with a disjunction in the necessary position. why do we consider this an embedded conditional?
Lsac only converts A+ to 4.33. if no A+ on transcript your A will remain a 4.00. on the explaining to law schools, i honestly have no idea, usually law schools understand this but at the end of the day they care about their median so try your hardest for your highest lsat score possible.