in group 3 you can choose either idea to negate! so, it helps me to choose the idea that doesn't have a negative (cannot become a Jedi vs possesses extraordinary discipline) and make that the sufficient condition.
/PED --> /Jedi
If one does not possess extraordinary discipline, one cannot become a Jedi.
Jedi --> PED
If one is a Jedi/becomes a Jedi, then one possesses extraordinary discipline.
nvmm found it in foundations!
Sorry, I've been skipping around the lectures as last-minute prep before the LSAT. Is there a video/lecture that goes over all of the lawgic rules like negate sufficient?
overthought in blind review but not enough to apply the most rule :(
I like to read RC problems like the author is having a conversation with me.
So, if the passage listed a bunch of facts and suddenly you see a reason/hypothesis that doesn't have a source (ex: Scientists say _, Zanotto calculates), it's most likely the author's opinion. This is specifically for phen-hypo questions, but I use a similar strategy for other questions!
2 made me give up... coming back to this tmrw
Is there a strategy to make reading negations and translating them into lawgic less uncomfortable? For example for question 4, when I see the lawgic statement, I understand it as "do not not know their income", but this ends up confusing me more than it helps.
PrepTest February 1997 - Section 3 - Question 13
Can someone explain why the answer for this question is not D? I can see why the answer is B but I wasn't able to eliminate D from the answer choices.
Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."
It is! Group 4 is negate necessary, and the two ideas are 'restriction' and 'sale of merch'. He briefly mentioned that you could either use sale of merch --> /restriction or restriction --> /sale of merch, which is the lawgic for group 4