Fwemenithss.. no thanks!

(C): "Prohibiting the hunting of protected animals."

The "protected" to me meant that the sea otters were already protected in the past-tense before FST of 1910, and that FST of 1910 was prohibiting the hunting of these already "protected" animals.

But we have no idea whether sea otters were (past tense) "protected".

Simply stated, the FST of 1910 regulated a commerce, but we cannot say that it "protected" and we certainly cannot assume that it prohibited the hunting an already protected animal.

F'n grammar, man.

@ilex It's NOT true that both court cases challenged. The first case upheld the problem. It took the later case to correct the first.

Yup, me a dumbass, thinking in the past that I didn't need to predict the passage style. Not knowing the passage style might give me the wrong main point, which might give me the wrong "author's attitude" answer; that puts me in a -2 hole and I'm not even in the questions yet.

I chose (A) over (D) because I read probable as "provable". I should get my eyes checked.

JY, you're a DAWG! Sup Kevin!

I'd roll one with Rolanda

@ChristopherSpencer There's a shit ton of them on the test, too.

@KikeHernándezLuvr Quasimodo predicted all this.

Billie Holiday ;(

@Min One thing I told myself while figuring this question out was "time is relevant but it's not determinant." Meaning, it took me forever to figure this question and I just kept thinking, why am I not figuring this out faster? But that's ok! Right now however much time it takes us to figure these questions correctly is only relevant, but it doesn't determine our success.

Sheesh. NO POE could help with this one. Figured it out but SHEESH!

@Cweathers Oh yeah, LSAT test makers to fuck you up. It's full on psychological warfare. The LSAT is probably the hardest standardized professional test. Harder than the MCAT, GRE, etc. for that reason.

@AidenMagley thanks lil aiden

Veronica and I are trying this new fad called uh jogging, or I believe it's yogging. It might be a soft J. I'm not sure, but apparently you just run for an extended period of time. It's supposed to be wild.

@JoshuaZeigher 5/5 crew. enjoy the sushi

Pat never had the makings of VideoKing member

Not gonna lie, I have a thing for DeMorgan. It's becoming a problem.

A video lesson. Are you not entertained!? Isn't it why you are here?!

@AugustusGreenwood I think you missed the implied/assumed premise that the educational program is the ONLY thing that is causing high performances. This is the implied assumption. Meaning, the only reason why the Educator concludes that the program should be expanded is because they believe programs causes better performances.

But what if this implied assumption is wrong? What if it's not the program itself. It's an alternative factor that is causing the program to be successful? What if it's that most of the "stay at home moms" are actually stay at home kindergarten teachers? That weakens the assumption that it's the program.

@joycetheok I had the same issue. But I believe a "counterexample" would be something like a counter-premise. Notice the observers' gave a causal hypothesis: "this decline is caused by..." There was no evidence provided. Rather, the observers noticed a phenomenon then followed up with what they thought was causing the phenomenon. Because the observers did not give any evidence/example for their claim, there was no evidence or example to counter.

@JosephWendt "The arsonist had oddly shaped feet" - Ron Burgundy

@CarlosHernandez03 Yeah, careful. Many is not less than Most, because again, many is talking about numbers while most is talking about percentages. Numerically, many can cover most just like some can cover most and all. But proportionally (%) is where the distinction happens. So just gotta be careful not to confuse numbers for percentages.

@EJay Both are indicator words. But the "without" negates the "no" Essentially it renders the conditional a double negative.

@pbahoura It's a bad thing. Because you are not "reversing and negating". The right negation ould be to flip "deer" to the SUFF and negate that, and then make the "hunting permitted" into the necessary condition and negate that.

• So it should look like this:

  • /Deer Pop --> /Hunting Permitted.

The reason for this is that not doing X, or negating the sufficient, does not guarantee that you will NOT do the necessary.

• Think about it like this: Driving a car guarantees that at bare minimum you are going somewhere.

  • Driving is the subset of going somewhere.

    • Now negate "driving". Does NOT driving guarantee that you are NOT going somewehre? NO. Because you can take an Uber, or you can have a friend drive you.

For me, any time I see a Sufficient negation I say "Necessary is wild" meaning, anything can happen. Negating the SUFF simply means the necessary condition can do whatever because nothing guarantees it anymore.