where is it stated that we need both s bacilli and the host being phys run down

what

i dont like the use of the word never in A

another day another weird kind of logic the lsat expects me to already understand

not enough nouns in this paragraph. or verbs

couldve said theyre "lawgically equivalent" too har har

oh thank God for POE

main conclusion also supports nothing else.

some premises are 'sub-conclusions' in that they are supported by other premises, and at the same time support the main conclusion (perhaps other sub-premises)

if its hard to determine the structure of the argument, you can narrow things down by considering:

• the main conclusion wont support anything else. at the same time, it must have at least 1 premise

• a premise will be supporting something else. and thus, it won't just be background info

• if there is no supporting going on, you have merely a list of facts in your passage

my brain already jumps to making analogies and examples. hope i can add 'pattern recongition' to my mental toolkit. Lord knows how stressful test day is. cheers

i thought it was distorting for the speaker to say Arnot's argument is dubious like how he explained

nice to hear other people find this passage a headache XD

yeah no the word misguided seems a bit much. i gathered from what the passage said that they couldve had a difference of opinion/direction

this is what they call a "weed out question." No mercy!

how is it implied that EditorY says "composition is sufficient"? I dont get how thats a (or the) reasonable thing to interpret from whats written. no guarantee that thats the extent of his uh full analysis of the photo right?

where/how did the author of the passage posit that the unions are gaining strength?