I was thinking the iatrogenic disease was like an injury requiring surgery and death results from infection or complication. Which C wouldn't make much sense, if that were the case. I feel like if I knew more about Iatrogenic disease it'd be clear.
would A be the stronger AC if the last 4 words were to be erased?
Gotta study up on my Guilded Era oil barren english apparently. That was the only one that sounded anything close to a correct answer, Just thought "Obtain what?"
@2:00 whoa there bud!
I chose B then remembered this is the LSAT and thought that "Qualifies" would actually be right bhahah
"It's like a reward"
bamboozled by the fact that I recognized A as basically denying the whole analogy and yet I still xed it out
you might be my favorite commenter
I've notice that with NA the assumption is P -> C, while with SA its C -> P (or how C relates to P). Is this an actual phenomenon or am I just chatting?
@1:00 alright bro you didn't have to call me out like that
By the end of studying the LSAT, I'll also be a good candidate for Jeopardy with all these little nugs of info.
they have the same problem too? ...
C is getting Philosophical
Swear it'd be the reverse with Jimin
why was the last lesson and this one both level 3 but it felt like this one was easier to understand all the parts?
Genghis did a whole lot of trespassing in his day
the experimental VTs are subset of all VTs, stim said experimentals are heat resistant but in general VTs have lower cap. Both resistance and higher cap are needed to replace semiconductors, however "all other significant respects" does change the meaning lol. if it was MSS then A would be perfect.
I think what makes this question difficult is that all the other ACs are not supported but mash correct claims together which changes the strength of support. I can't tell if E was weakly supported or valid? The claim is basically a "what if," but it's inferred based off the rules in the first sentence.
My account seems to be glitched or whatever. I have lawhub advantage, but only recently (yesterday) the red popup indicating that Ive only linked lawhub account began. What makes it more peculiar is that I have been doing drills and whatnot for a week or two. Please Help? Ive even clicked the hyperlink and re-signed in.
So would it be the case that a hypothesis must satisfy all the methods to build a stronger claim (like it's necessary to triangulate the phenomena)? or would it be that the we'd need to find an AC that uses a single method which brings the strongest evidence for or against? I'm assuming this is used for the most strengthen/weaken type questions.
The second image/example kinda freaked me out a bit, Elias is not a common example name lol.
"If you can play it slowly, then you can play it quickly."
- Twoset Violin
pandering to a certain demographic, Dairy is all pain for me... lol