Would denying the verb or predicate by negating it in instances of "presumes/assumes without justification/warrant be wrong if it failed to negate the alternative hypothesis and used language without negating necessary (GROUP 4)?

#help (added by Admin)

How is D right when it merely applies the modifier by including "that" gains a large readership? It seems to be modifying rather than both serving as equivalences of an "and" statement.

#help (Added by Admin)

In the grammar of English, "But so far" indicates a premise, sufficient, or necessary universal indicator in answer choice A?

#help (Added by Admin)

Not only is AC (B) attempting to get you by making you assume as JY says "K" that it is already known to only pose a min risk thereby satisfying a necessary condition--which you can't assume bc only a min risk ~= w/out obvious side affects-- but I assumed "not-L" by thinking 10K kids have been given HGH w/out obvious side affects so, therefore, it is not likely to reveal important information about a med condition. The LSAT writers tricked me into making a novice assumption. Who am I to decide it won't sufficiently reveal important information also is 10k enough to assume anything, clearly not.

Is it applicable to implicitly conclude should not receive award by the failure contraposing back de morgans of either A or B or C in Rule 2?

#20

B) It seems to me like it negates sufficient. If rational then... paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. Well by stating "Rationality cannot be reasonably attributed to pathological behavior" you are negating the If Rational portion of the conditional statement. Therefore, in turn, allowing them to be mutually exclusive. Thus, making Passage A stand and compatible with B.

D) I choose this answer but I can see how a duty is never mentioned in Passage A but through the LSACs tricky ways of phrasing these AC I fell for it even though I performed the strategy JY uses of reading A then B. Should've not been scared to eliminate after recognizing it's a mish-mash.

As a Mexican from Kansas this was a passage that hit home. Not to forget, it's PT 68, Fibonacci!

When does it open again?

I really struggled with D initially. I saw how I had intuitively under time conditions correctly picked A but changed to D for the reason that I thought it was irrelevant. Yes, all schools do this so what?

I came to the realization that in assuming that D is correct as a fact you imply the world in which one University has given students scholarships and enough to provide students where all/most/some keep their scholarships--[creating the assumption that tuition stays constant yet the university must find other revenues to accommodate for the lack thereof students losing their scholarships and at the same time some students finding it harder to afford if say all kept their scholarship so maybe just maybe increases prices/cost in other ways]--and @ the same time that all/most/some don't keep their scholarships [therefore making it just that some students--those that don't keep their $ able to afford] as JY mentions.

Kansas S/O

After doing this problem and then coming back to try it again I see why E is the correct choice. Most vulnerable because XYZ, (being cloud cover, or as the video says, obstruction by X, etc.) but why can't you easily just say "well let's look at the cloud cover/radar maps to see if this is true" as a natural response?

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but this thought process initially had me glossing over this answer choice. Any advice on why I consciously rejected this?

#help (added by Admin)

So basically,

C)

"For" introduces premise which changes the first sentence to the conclusion which in the stim it was the first sentence offered as premise.

I choose C the first time but then thought reckless is not the same as accidents so I thought making the assumption was similar to apples and oranges that they are not the same.

This is why after BL I thought D was right because I thought it was attacking the support rather than the premise or conclusion. Can someone help me explain why it's not necessary to point out the flaw in the argument while it's descriptively accurate?

#help (Added by Admin)