Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Interested! DM'ed you!
P: Geo power plants produce heat by heat from underground. In areas where drilling to such underground sources is possible, geo power plants are more economical than conventional plants.
C: However, advocates contend that the economical power from geo power plants will be available in most areas.
Correct AC D: Advance drilling tech is being developed that will soon make it both feasible and economical to drill deeper many times compared to currently.
This is correct because it is directly about geo power plants, which are mentioned explicitly in the conclusion. Also, pay attention to the strength here - it uses WILL, which corresponds with the WILL assessment in the conclusion.
Wrong tricky AC E: Recent research has lead to discovery that could lower production costs for nearly all types of power plant.
This seems like it's stronger because it covers all power plants but it's actually weaker because it uses only COULD. Furthermore, this is not as directly about geo power plant as the correct AC.
Following this as well. Will they also make you remove the second monitor (even if off)?
I made the exact same mistake as you did. I also interpreted "one" as "everyone" as you did, which is why I had a hard time understanding why E is wrong. Your explanation between "should" vs. "may" is on point. I think this is a bigger sin that E committed. Thanks for pointing this out!
#help - Does this mean that "as" is a sufficient condition indicator?
The second premise and conclusion on JY's diagram appear to have just slash rather than conditional logic arrows. I understand that the explanation treat these slashes as normal conditional logic arrows, which would suggest that "as" introduces a sufficient condition. I'd appreciate it if someone can confirm that this is the case.
Totally agree with you on this one, dude. As a non-native English speaker, it was tricky af to sense this shift to sarcasm. This question though really highlights the importance of tone in arguments.
Correction: The imported oysters now don’t kill enough native oysters to decrease their population but they do enough that the native oysters’ population are not growing.
Here C is correct because: previously the native oysters were being killed by both TBT and imported oysters, although now TBT is gone, the imported oysters are still there (and even more of them) and they can suppress the native oysters' growth. The imported oysters now don't kill enough imported oysters to decrease their population but they do enough that the native oysters' population are not growing.
The key here is to see that there are two distinct group of oysters, and that there are two distinct factors that affect the native oysters' population.
I have the same question as well! Hope someone can give their two cents.
People, stop eating carbs when you try to lose weight.
Nice. Learned a new thing about global warming / climate change.
Do you guys have any comments on this boy?
The 180Watch - LSAT Prep Watch https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JML2IHQ/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_GfhOzbYJ0YRXJ
Just want to post to say thank you for posting this, especially in this brutal cycle.
I got my first rejection this morning. Although somewhat expected, it did hurt.
But I really believe what doesn't kill you can make you stronger (if you let it).
You don't have to listen to me but Spivey seems to agree with that: "I have never seen an aspiring law student fail to get to where they want if they simply worked hard and stayed positive."
I found his blog post below incredibly helpful for someone on the same boat :smile:
https://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/if-you-didnt-get-the-lsat-school-you-dreamed-of/