Writing out the spectrum of support is to help you gain a better understanding of the stimulus, but you should be able to answer these questions relatively quickly with your intuition. I recommend that once you are comfortable answering these questions correctly by drawing out the spectrum of support, you should start focusing on labeling the support level of the answer choices in your head (intuition) to reach the target time.
Exactly! There wasn't enough information that the researcher's comparison was deceptive. I was stuck between A/C for this reason and decided to go with C.
If there had been another suggestion that it was deceptive, I would've chosen A. Misleading is not the same as deceptive. It's good that we made this mistake now, as the best way to improve your score is not to make the same mistake twice!
I love the LSAT with my whole heart
It's a statistical generalization flaw. For example: Most of my friends are human. You are a human, so you are probably my friend.
Are we friends? Realistically, no. Just because you are a human doesn't mean you will likely be my friend. It's overgeneralizing my relationship with most of my friends to you, which makes this argument logically invalid.
Thats actually an interesting point to bring up. I honestly think you can as long as the other answer choices don't also have casual reasoning. I definitely eliminate answer choices if the reasoning flaws don't line up. for example, in this case, if an answer choice has a comparative flaw, i'm getting rid of it
/hear the pronunciation--->/realize
he's emphasizing the reference to a contrapositive
Superset- fast food
Subset- Chick-Fil-A
If you eat at Chick-Fil-A it's sufficient to say that you're eating at a fast food spot.
It is necessary to eat at a fast food spot to eat at Chick-Fil-A but not sufficient to conclude you're eating at Chick-Fil-A.
The example "Tom is taller than Athena" compares two subjects against each other, whereas an absolute claim is something that is assumed to be as true or is a "standalone."
Yes! Imagine putting "therefore" before "the attempt to contain the outbreak failed." It makes perfect sense! Also, because is a premise indicator. Hope that helps.
I thought of it as "the cat drinks milk" because within the predicate, "drinks" acts as the verb and milk as the object. The object is the thing that the verb (drinking) acts upon (milk). So ask yourself in your case, "What is a valid kernel of a sentence, in which the purpose of the sentence is still met?" I think yours is a little too abstract of a kernel. Your kernel should be a clear rundown of the sentence. I also see "like" as a modifier of "drinking" instead of a verb replacement because what if the cat hates drinking milk? Or what if he is neutral about it? You have to be open-minded when selecting your subject+predicate.
"The cat likes to drink" also doesn't provide the specifics and direction of the stimulus. It leaves you with an open-ended sentence, which I believe isn't optimal when breaking down the sentence. I hope that makes sense.
I’m interested. Taking the lsat in June
Hi everybody.
Im a junior in undergrad planning to take the lsat in June. I wanted to see if there were any study groups here or if anybody was interested in making one, either virtual or in person?
I’m aiming for a score 170+ and my last pt was a 160 so I’m looking for other people in the 155-165 range!
Lets do it!