cars still emit pollution at stop lights. Who wrote this?

POE was my friend here

Felt so off of my game this section. I need a break

W chat

Sometimes it just happens. Just review what you got wrong and keep working. Don't let it get to you

Fucking brutal. I PT low 170's and I feel like I didn't even clear 165

I'm in the same boat, I think i'd post this to the lawschooladmissions subreddit and see what they say

Impressive work, LSAT writers. Very well done.

All we can really talk about here is what is "unacceptable". Voting for a candidate who's opinions differ from her on at least one issue that is important to her is acceptable if and only if she disagrees with the other candidates on more such issues.

There is only one issue that is important to her. M agrees with her on that issue.

Say Kay is put in a situation in which she needs to vote for one of the three candidates, and all of the candidates disagree with her on some issues, and she needs to vote for one of them.

Can she vote for L? If she agrees with another candidate on more issues than L, she cannot. There is one issue, and M agrees with her, L does not. Thus, she agrees with M on more issues than L, so it is unacceptable to vote for L.

Can she vote for N? Same analysis as above. It is unacceptable for her to vote for N.

Is it unacceptable for her to vote for M? No, it is not unacceptable, because the condition fails to be met. However, we do not know if it is acceptable for her to vote for M. She only has one issue and shares it with M. They do not disagree on any important issue so the conditional statement is not applicable to the scenario.

Is C also a sufficient assumption? Since we have established this claim is trivial, if all trivial claims are unworthy of serious consideration, it would be an SA right? Also, if we changed "Trivial" to "uninteresting" wouldn't it also be SA/strengthen since we've established that its uninteresting? Or have we not established that it is uninteretsing, just that it needs to be more interesting