The LSAT does not want us to completely change our understanding of 'or', but it wants us to re-think its possibilities. For instance, the LSAT may say "For the Friday during winter break, Kelly can go to China or Australia" in this context we can assume that it is impossible for Kelly to go to both. However, if it were to say something like "Kelly will go to the workshop with Terry or Aseulo," then it is obvious that Kelly could go with either or both.

Think of it as an expansion but not an absolute change of definition.

I got this question right purely on the very minimal impacts I know about commercial fishing lol

Simply clicked A instead of B. Lesson learned, when you see two answers that look identical..READ READ READ.

I completely agree with Jas. Could you not just add a PDF photo of the question before or under the video? Further, you could add the photo before the video commences, however you would need to re-upload and export all of the content. Please note, that not having the full questions completely hinders our ability to intake the content. This was a big oversight.

#feedback

Hi Aegomezbor,

The reason you make the inference about pat here is because the initial premise is: Member and /10+ --> Main st. location.

Pat comes in and does /Main st. (Walnut) --> /member or 10+. We know she did not pick 10+, so we can infer /member.

Hi Kate,

I agree that proposal should be kicked up into the domain. However, it should read as: (proposals) If fewer 50 and duplicate more 25% --> /funded. Conclusion gives us the negated necessary "funded" (valid), and we respond by contraposing. Funded --> /fewer than 50 or /25% duplicate. We know from the premises that it is /25%, so we can freely select not fewer than 50%.

Hope that helps.

Only answer that has nailed this for me. Thanks!

Skip to 15:00

100% agree redwolf

This one is so tricky. I have read the stem a million times and still wouldn't have conditioned this in the correct order of R -> J E/C. I had J --> R; thus, I eliminated E immediately.