This might be a strange way of thinking, but for 5 I was not convinced that "extensive training" means there's nothing left to learn. I thought that implication was too weak, so my chain did not include it. I understand the explanation, but does that apply to any statement that a main concept matches? Even if the first concept and last concept does not make sense in the whole chain? Is it just considered a weak argument, but still valid? Am I getting too caught up in semantics? Thanks!
This is perfect. Dissecting the LSAT like this makes it seem easy! (But I know the LSAT IS HARD-first lesson)
11
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
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!
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.
This might be a strange way of thinking, but for 5 I was not convinced that "extensive training" means there's nothing left to learn. I thought that implication was too weak, so my chain did not include it. I understand the explanation, but does that apply to any statement that a main concept matches? Even if the first concept and last concept does not make sense in the whole chain? Is it just considered a weak argument, but still valid? Am I getting too caught up in semantics? Thanks!