- Joined
- Sep 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
Am I the only one who confused the the "each of the many" as a "many" quantifier? (diagrammed as <-s->).
#Ineedhelp #feedback Why are we making the "value of investment" redundant? That does not make sense!! I considered that as a necessary condition and C makes so much more sense. She should not buy it because she is buying it for the value of investment!
Yes, but for it to logically make sense, you HAVE TO NEGATE IT.
If it is a cat, then it is a mammal. Contrapositive, if it is NOT a mammal, it is NOT A CAT.
Do you get how these technically mean the same? If it is a cat, that is sufficient for us to know it is a mammal. Contrapositive, if it is NOT a mammal, it is sufficient for us to know that it is NOT (it cannot) be a cat.
Okay so, these are the disclaimers LSAT gives before we start our test -
The "Best" Answer Rules: The test openly admits that multiple options might seem plausible or "conceivably" work, but your job is strictly to find the single most accurate and complete option.
The Assumption Boundary: The phrase regarding "commonsense standards" gives you permission to bring basic human reality to the test, but strictly bars you from creating wild, hyper-specific backstories or "what-if" scenarios to force an answer choice to be correct.
I think this means - basic reality like cats are mammals, or sky is blue is something we should inherently know UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. If they say, cats are not mammals but they say "consider the above statements true", we might have to take the author's opinion on that and continue with the "reasoning".
It is difficult to keep (deep wounds) free of bacteria. Even strong antibiotics failed to kill the bacteria that live in (such) wounds.
How is "it" in the beginning of the sentence a referential??
I got 0/5. I feel like crying. I really though I was getting better.