No, it's a SA, and the premise was a "safety violation at a power plant" -- exactly what AC C says.
In his video on EC, JY discusses the example A ----> (B---> C), where the embedded part is second, and it becomes A + B ----> C. But what if the embedded conditional is first [(A--->B) ----> C], what would the mechanical rule be then? Do we say that A----> B + C?
Question: in the sentence, "If you’re not greedy, you’re not a business school student" the two different conditional indicators confuse me: if I use "If" then I get /G-->/BS (Or BS-->G); however, if I use "not," then I can come out G-->BS (I negate the BS and make it the NC, and then I'm left with the G which become the SC and also has the SC indicator "If"). So, which one do I choose? I know the first way is correct, but I'm not sure why.
Is it the case that "If" overpowers "not", and "not" is merely a negation and not a logical indicator?
Anyone else struggling on the digital RC about how to markup the low-res notations for each paragraph? Solutions?
In question 19, I found JY's explanation of the flaw in AC D lackluster. I think a better way of negating it is its focus on "industrial pollution." Our passage does mention industrial pollution, but by no means is it the only pollution a government can be concerned with. In fact, the first words of the passage talk about "...governments can decrease air pollution..."
Below is a sequential timer you can use for the RC Memory Method (3.5, 1.5, and 3.5 minutes). This way you know exactly when to move on to the next phase without changing the timer.
In Q14, I thought A might be correct because prior to the Law and Lit. movement the relationship between law and literature was stable in its non-existence. Now, however, that stable, banal relationship has been upended by the new radical approach. Thus, the relationship isn't stable.
I know that it's probably a stretch - what do "theoretical developments" have to do with it - but that was my reasoning.
@aalterio948 Thanks for the breakdown! After all the positive press from 7Sage members, I think I’ll purchase the book.
I would tend to agree with @aalterio948. I don't think there are many topics that are inherently off-limits; it's all about your tone and presentation. You can have the "best" topic and flop on your PS because your tone is haughty, whiny, or resentful. Your story has the redemptive quality to it - and it's real! if you have serious BD, that means that your functioning did not come easily. This shows character and grit.
Obviously, you should check with someone more qualified, but those are my thoughts.
Good luck!
The consensus seems to be that AI and automation will only augment the law industry, particularly the lower level, menial tasks, but won't usurp the necessity of lawyers in society.
I've been calmed :) Back to LSAT studying
Good onto you!
The same thing happened to me! I thought I was crazy for taking soooo long on CC and FP every game, but I think it'll be worth it.
Good luck!
Anyone else worried about going to law school and then, with the advent of AI, not finding a job? I have seen various studied and predictions about the pace of AI's growth and dominance, but I'm not sure what to believe...
If there is a real threat to law careers, which field in law would be the least susceptible to that threat?
Has anyone used Ellen Cassidy's new LR book -- The Loophole. There seem to be rave reviews on Reddit. If you have used it, is there anything revolutionary about it? Are its approaches similar to 7Sage's?
I'm looking for a study buddy for accountability and BR. Currently, I'm finishing up the CC and plan on moving on to the PT's.
My diagnostic score was a 156, and my target is 173; the plan is to take take the LSAT sometime in the fall or winter of 2019/2020. I'm pretty much studying full-time, so my study schedule is pretty flexible. I've been studying for a while now and am almost ready to start focusing almost exclusively on PT's.
I've found that going through the reasoning of a LG or a LR passage and orally making the inferences with another person is quite helpful -- the same might be for you. Just the fact that you aren't stuck in your thoughts is crucial.
Let me if you are interested, and we can see if we work well together.
@aalterio948 Thanks as always for beautifully elucidating MBT questions in the podcast
@michaelcinco801 thanks for setting this up!
I don’t think I want to use the later tests, so I guess I’ll leave when you hit them.
@studentservice I'm referring to the answer sheet for individual drills.
Thanks for posting this! I was just looking for exactly this.
If it's still available, I'd love to have the Economist and/or Scientific American for my RC reading practice.