- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Live
是梦吧
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
@lindsaywasserberger269 We know that the mail advertisements induced millions of purchases from home because we are given this causal statement:
Because of direct-mail advertising, millions of people buy products by phone or online.
Thus, it can be inferred that if it weren't for these advertisements, home purchases would be less by millions, and AC B would suggest that these millions would be purchased anyway but at the store.
ACs D and E can be ruled out because if one were the right answer, then the other would have to be as well, and there cannot be two right answers.
@sofiesunshine My rule of thumb when it comes to ambiguity is to first interpret the ACs in their least charitable interpretation, and if this leads to ruling out every AC, then go back and reinterpret those that were ruled out for an ambiguity.
@flowerberry The way AC A allows the conclusion to be properly drawn is because we are told that money is a universal phenomenon, i.e. ALL societies have it. If it is the case that some societies have never had contact with and been influenced by any other society, then the fact that these societies have developed money shows that there are some societies that independently developed money without having been influenced by other societies.
@ZulymarPerez It draws attention to the implicit assumption that high salary is the only relevant financial reward.
@mikeross-jr I think you are interpreting "different aircraft" as meaning different types of aircraft; however, if you interpret it as referring to each individual aircraft, then it becomes a situation where flying at the same altitude involves the risk of collision.
@SpencerY I think you are interpreting "different planes" to refer to different types of planes. If you were to interpret it to mean any individual plane, then you would likely have a better time accepting it.
@HazelNi Oh really? I would definitely want to practice in the default size used by LSAC.
@HazelNi Yes, needed is definitely an issue with AC C, as we know that rubisco is not needed to convert carbon dioxide into a nongas molecule in C-4 plants.
@johnwilsonbooth847 But notice how in C-4 plants, the carbon dioxide gets converted into a non-gas molecule before reaching the rubisco. Thus, rubisco is not needed to perform the conversion, as demonstrated by the C-4 plants.
@kittymeowmeow The word choice of "inequitably" hints at the author's attitude that he finds the record companies, publishers, managers, and other intermediaries blame-worthy.
@LSAT1011 It is true that it's possible for the pike elimination to have been successful 4 years ago but that the fish returned recently. That is what makes this am MSS question and not a MBT question, and is also probably why it's a 3-star rather than a 1-star question; because it requires you to make an inference that could be false.
@lavender-haze You are right that if the president's speech wasn't inflammatory, then Riley's argument falls apart. However, notice how the author isn't just concluding that Riley's argument is inadequate; the author is concluding that Riley's conclusion is false. Successfully attacking an argument (which the author doesn't actually do) severs the supports flowing into the argument's conclusion, but this does not allow for concluding that the conclusion is false.
I worked at an establishment since 2024, and I will begin serving as shop steward for my coworkers.
I'm wondering if there are any law schools that would be iffy about union involvement.
If the advice is to include it on my resume, is there a recommended formatting?
For example, what I'm considering is:
[Company] ([City], [STATE]) <------------------> ([Start date] - Present)
[Main Position] (Elected shop steward from [start date] - present)
• [Task related to main position 1]
• [Task related to main position 2]
Thank you to anyone who can share any experience with listing a union representative position!
@sagely
so the explanation that it was made 3 days ago is likely valid
First of all, my point is absolutely not that ruling out an alternative explanation renders the remaining explanation "likely valid." Second of all, the plausibility of the alternative explanation ruled out is not irrelevant to the impact it has on the remaining explanation.
D's discounting the second theory does NOT strengthen the first one.
Like I said, AC D is wrong because it does not discount the second theory. But if it does, then we do have more reason to accept the first theory COMPARED to when the second theory was a contender. Sure, compared to a state where the second theory was never proposed, the ruling out of the second theory only brings us back to that initial state. However, we are in a state where we already have two theories that are arguably both plausible. Thus, ruling out the second theory does matter in accepting the first.
Your "magic dust" example fails to acknowledge that the plausibility of the second theory matters, as your example is designed to make it obvious that the second theory is complete nonsense. In your example, the tension between the first and second theories is nonexistent, and so ruling out the second theory does not release any tension.
@Bigsby The author need not agree with his view; this question hinges on your understanding that for a transformation to be "inexplicable," it really means that it cannot be explained. The author gives an explanation for each progression, and the fact that Schoenberg saw it as "next inevitable step" is precisely one such explanation.
@Vanesszabaranyai Where is Kevin's video?