As far as I understood, the stimulus did not limit the scope of someone who could write about the music well. Instead, Jorge only indicated that having experience of the music in the given age is a requirement. I don't know why (A) is the correct one since it limits to those "ONLY" people who were in their teens or early twenties during the 1960s can be qualified to write well
Regarding the first chain, shown at lac festival -> Canadian, we don't know when this happened, whereas the second chain, won at LF ->m won int'l fest indicates a specific time period, this year. So, I thought those two chains could not be chained due to the timing conflict.
I still don't get why (A) is an wrong answer. Since most mail arrives three days or more, I understood that it was because either not correctly addressed or being damaged in transit.
I don't get it when negating the premise (/belief->disappear) why Kevin ended up not negating the "/belief".
In my understanding, it should be as below in terms of contrapositive:
exist-> belief+appear
Please somebody explain me this...
how would we know that it would be "easier" to correct the mistakes from (E)? I don't get it and this now surely feels like not an one star question
When seeing a stimulus, is it essential to recognize whether it is formal or informal logic?
I studied LSAT aggressively for two months, completed the core curriculum of 7Sage, then I took my first PT and got 142. I think I def need to revisit the core curriculum but I don't think it's going to be changed enormously by January 2026 and it seems like the core curriculum did not help me at all.
Any tips..?
Written down - > spent time w/rulers (Bacon)
/S spent time w/rulers
------------------------
(contrapositive) S spent time w/rulers -> /written down
how should I come up with part-whole from the stimulus? Can it be like whole-part? how can I order it...
Talbert never mentioned that children should be taught to play chess. Why is (D) a correct answer? And just because Sklar pointed out her objection to teaching chess, we should not assume that Talbert "maybe" agrees on the matter. This is not an inference question type, in my opinion.