Wow, I did everything on this question and got sucked into answer choice E but had no idea to interpret the word "that" the way JY explained it. Are there others words that indicate "and" or sufficiency that are worth knowing?
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-19/
just checking the everyone not = some do not yes?
and does whoever introduce a sufficient condition? it does, right?
And D takes the inclusive OR which actually becomes an "AND" right?
How can we infer from B that the self-expression required for survival is generally nonaggressive?
When I say that A is distinct from B, does that make B the opposite of A?
In this case Violence (A) is distinct from the self expression (B) - i take the B to be non-violent?
Slightly confusing, so some clarity would help (thanks in advance :)
We had to assume they went for the exclusive OR here, yes? (the not both one!)
Does "evidence" always have to have the same definition as premise? Just thought I'd check.
I was down to A and E, and felt that A was right but then ruled it out because I felt it did not address the theft part of the answer. I still want to see why A is better than E. Of course, we rule out E because we do not have enough evidence to conclude anything about other societies. But then his/her conclusion has nothing to do with theft at all? If someone could help, thanks!
Glad to see a discussion on RC here. Does anybody feel like they need an explanation on any old passage from RC? Maybe we can boil it down to one passage to request the 7sage team for one? Not sure if they will appeal to the request, but its worth a shot. I find JY's grinding through the passages very helpful, and I'm getting greedy for some more especially on the earlier PT's (before PTs 45 etc). Maybe a nice, dirty science passage outlining the death of platypuses due to excessive C02 mixed with its embroyonic polarity gone bonkers?
Just a shoutout to see if others feel the same way...