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...
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...