The main problem is c is hard to be dissected. It is not the case, brah brah brah then, moral rule=law. This is never supported, as law, according to conclusion, is supposed to be sometime okay to break, I.e conflict with moral, as long as illegal but is somehow moral. So, there is unlawful good. Then, condition for it is not provided for it not to be true, condition only provided, whatever it is, that it is not true. How can a condition existed to make a true out of it ever? C must be wrong, or go die somewhere, hahaha.
Please add me too. Thanks
only s is completely known, group is in and rank.
it means, l.e, you know t and p are the same team rank 2nd, and n rank third. however, the team name only s is known to be g, we dont know whether pt is h or not, the same goes to n. m and o are not known, where o is free agent.
I have the same goal, and please add me.
Please send invite to me. Thanks,
interested, add me,
So, the question is asking eliminating the answer choice that filing reason is to get benefit, A is kind of another reason for filling for benefit, i got this one wrong, as it is quite tricky to see c actually is saying, great, they are filing to get benefit, as if not, they would have filed on the day that they deserved, they did not (that is an interference), so they are now filing is to get benefit, so the reason is given one of the scenario that explains why the author is right to make such an assertion.
I think E is also okay. E is saying over dose of coffee, however, it includes stress, outside the knowledge, but when weakening, we are supposed to be, right. So, this one is really ambiguous, in terms of attaching the premise, because, the premise is drinking normal amount of coffee is ok for heart. then E says but over dose is bad, so premise is bad, so conclusion is bad. However, are we supposed to introduce alternative.
I don't like the other choice, but what i like does not matter. It says a normal amount of coffee is good for heart, but it could be bad for the body. That is totally absurd, it not only against daily wisdom, it also against the whole assumption of the LSAT, that is something can shield a light into argument.
Here, it shows that it contradict with the system, introducing both valid answer, which one is better, common sense, without hesitation, is E.
So how are we going to argue about it? when does coffee become a problem? it never.
The only problem is, the author argument is absurd, you should say normal coffee is ok for the whole body, then it is okay for the heart. You can't say it is ok to the heart, as if heart is bigger than the body. So because it is absurd, it is reasoning err. Hope it help, as I also believed this one should be level 5.
I would like to join, please, thanks much.
I have difficulty in this one. Looks like, I can only choose by elimination, as BCDE are not good. D is, however, may be related. However, A has mentioned something outside the scope of question. I am debating, as this is an assumption, I would be very hesitate to get A, as A assumes something not given.
I have two LR, one RC, and last LG. I look at game 3, then skip to game 4, then back to 3, have a few mins left. I was interrupt one time during LR, asked me to pull down camera. If they can see my face, I dont see any reason, why would they need to yell at me at all, and the clock was still running, definitely not a pleasant experience. My connection was perfect all the time, it was just out of luck during break I went back 5 mins left, they complaint about my connection breaking off, the heck with it. I waited for some mins for tech to check my connection. My wife thinking I should complain. But you know what? I dont really care, I agreed the exam is a little none reasonable, make no sense for preparing for law school, but somehow, it is manageable. I will say the first posts about RC is none of what I have seen, I have the same section with the one RC, and I agrees with the content of the post about gym and body etc. Wasnot the best of the RC that I would have taken-mostly my fault for not following my routine, but it was my first taken, and I was quite consistent in RC scores, so I am not too worry. Two LR seems to be easier for me, the second one I end up with some time left.
shoot, only me ranting this one, that can be right. However, I did missread the D, as I was, how the heck D makes any sense, it is so convoluted, that I dont know what is talking about. why not just say, they are in the market when the older is still available, so when I wanted the newer, better one, I can. shoot.
heck hell, that is not the main point, and if it is not main point, then it is meaningless. dont like it.
I end up choose A, I have no idea of E, as I choose D in the exam, due to time limited. When I have more time, I think A stated the last piece of the stimulus. Now, when you said E is correct, man, it is like, heck, hell, it became conclusion of the whole deduction, not the supported fact.
Hey, I like to join. Please invite me.
I am interested, please let me in. Thanks,
interested
I see there are some discussion, i think your main issue is confusion, or how to deal with.
Here is your problem, the first is negate the whole statement, the second is negate only part of the expression. To negate the whole statement, it is some. To negate just left (sufficient) right (necessary) portion, your proceed with negate AND, you will have /A OR /B. hopefully it is what you want.
I found this strengthening question baffle, quite involve, as if request an expert witness. I would say, I choose C then move, just because I was wrong, I stuck on it for a while. I choose C because I think it is 3rd cause. However, it may need some assumptions, per JY. Upon review, I say, A, B, C, D weaken the argument somehow, i.e. explain EU has better teeth. However, when seeing E, I also see it as diet equal; therefore, not a causal reason, or precluding a causal relationship between teeth and diet. Therefore weaken the causal relationship of WF causing a bad or good teeth, therefore support the tendency hypothesis.
Add me in, thx