Why can't you dodge the idea of embedded conditionals entirely on the first question. 'unless' is group 3. Our elements are DP (drive out poachers) and /RPWP (none of the relocated pandas will prosper). So using the translation rule, you get either /DP -> /RPWP or RPWP -> DP. Why do you need to confuse yourself further by introducing an embedded conditional when you don't need one?
1
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.
Why can't you dodge the idea of embedded conditionals entirely on the first question. 'unless' is group 3. Our elements are DP (drive out poachers) and /RPWP (none of the relocated pandas will prosper). So using the translation rule, you get either /DP -> /RPWP or RPWP -> DP. Why do you need to confuse yourself further by introducing an embedded conditional when you don't need one?