- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
I agree. I translated it as "It is always the case that when A happens B happens." By that logic, it should be A --> B.
Clicking the green tick mark to the left of each lesson title should do the trick.
C is wrong because it says "the evidence cited to show that a certain factor was absent...." This is inconsistent with the evidence in the stimulus. The stimulus only tells us that "Equipment that monitors a patient's oxygen and carbon dioxide levels was not available in most operating rooms"
Answer choice C says that these equipment were absent (completely unavailable), but that is not the case. They were just not widely used.
Answer choice A is correct because the fact these equipment were not available in most operating rooms during the review period, does not show that their increased used would not cut fatalities due to anesthesia.
Think about it this way: It is certainly possible for all the hospital fatalities, during the 20 year review period, to have occurred only in those operating rooms that had the equipment. In such a case, it becomes unclear whether the use of monitoring equipment cannot significantly cut fatalities due to anesthesia because we cannot ascertain whether or not the equipment played a role in reducing fatalities without an additional study.
Hope that helps!
Retail stores experience decrease in revenue ==> (attitude towards extravagant gift-giving changed => prices risen beyond the level most people can afford)
Attitude towards extravagant gift-giving changed => something to celebrate
prices risen beyond the level most people can afford => salaries haven't kept up with rising prices during the past year.
Given the premise, "if salaries have kept up with rising prices during the past year" what must be true?
Since this is just a negation of the necessary condition in the last sentence of the stimulus, you can conclude the negation of the sufficient condition i.e. "prices have not risen beyond the level most people can afford" (AC: C)
They're basically asking us for the contrapositive of the last statement.
The purpose of the research/researchers experiments is to serve the needs of oil companies. Therefore, based on the researchers work, the oil companies are experimenting with two pumps that could help minimize the dangers from crude to workers.
Hope that helps
It is officially about 3 months away from the February LSAT and I am extremely stoked but still a little nervous. People have suggested three months as the best amount of time one should spend in studying. But I find that despite this effort, one might still fall short of one's intended goal due to a number of different factors. One factor which I believe is crucial for progress is the ability to study efficiently.
When it comes to standardized testing, I suck at studying efficiently. I sometimes find myself spending enormous amount of time studying but never breaking the "plateau". With that being said, I would like to get some insights on how you all study. Outside of the 7sage curriculum, how do you all fine tune the skills needed (e.g. speed etc). For example, as a philosophy major I try to spend time really understanding the subtleties embedded in arguments in the readings that I'm assigned as a helping tool. What else do you all recommend?
Also, I know it can be hard to study for the LSAT while one is still in school but this is a reality for many of us. In school, I work best when I follow a routine that I've set for myself, otherwise I'll procrastinate my whole life away. I've been thinking of ways to fuse these two into my schedule but I would also like to hear other thoughts as well.
It may help to focus on the conclusion drawn and the reason for the conclusion
Premise: Panel of independent scientists found that tests conducted to determine the safety of irradiated foods were flawed.
Conclusion: Therefore, Irradiated food is not safe to eat
The activists is assuming that a flawed method guarantees a wrong conclusion. But it is quite possible to use a flawed method to arrive at the right conclusion. Merely pointing out the flaw in a certain method does not prove that results of that method are also flawed/wrong.
Answer choice A basically states that "the activist is treating the flaws found in the methodology of the test as proof that the results of the tests as false."