@ @ @ thanks!

Honestly, there is are none lmao. Basic propositional logic just only allows us to represent it as (Earnings --> DP to hours worked). But, if it helps just do it as a ratio? So, Earnings : hours worked. Its better to represent it as a ratio if they give you numbers though.

@ said:

@ Congrats! 169 is by far the best score of the LSAT. People strive for a 170+, but 169 is the sweet spot.

how so?

I cant speak for any other tablet, but in my opinion, the ipad works just fine with 7sage's digital testing. I saw slickdeals had some sales on it for like $250. The only thing is that highlighting on the ipad sucks... But then again, i have not tried highlighting with the apple pencil yet. It might be better. I think its important to note that people have been saying that you get a crappy stylus on the test and that highlighting on the actual test is also pretty hard. I, personally, see it as a challenge to help me get away from highlighting unless its absolutely necessary.

@ what was your dream school?

Can someone tell me whats wrong with my reasoning? I only got (A) through elimination and luck.... I cant exactly justify why (A) is the correct answer because I dont think I can agree with the assumption that if you should receive the award, you are eligible... For example, you are eligible for presidency if and only if you have an exemplary record of public service. If you are eligible for presidency, insightful ideas for economic and social reforms, and intend to implement universal health care, you should be president. Suppose Oprah does not have an exemplary record of public service. That implies not eligible for presidency. But its not clear to me how you can infer that Oprah should not be the president.... Like its not common sense that whether you should receive an award or be president depends on whether you are eligible....

#help (Added by Admin)

@ @ @

It took me a while, but tell me what you think of the following explanation. It seems to make waaay more sense to me. In essence, the answer to is irrelevant to whether the precept is violated. That was just a side point, made to distract us.

Explanation:

The definition of unobtrusive is work of architect takes 2nd place to total environment.

We know that Modern architects with strong personalities let their personalities take over their work. If this is the case, then the hierarchy, now, can be something like the following:

Total Environment

Strong personality

Work of architect

If this is the new hierarchy, then Modern Architects with strong personalities produce work that are NOT Unobtrusive.

So, rather than using any formal logic to derive the answer, the answer was explicitly stated. We just had to equate and understand the terms. In other words, AC (B) is a restatement of "They have let their strong personalities take over their work."

#help

@ Yeah... I honestly have no clue what you're saying with this: "So they negated the necessary condition, which means that either I or FPU would be negated. They chose FPU." Lets start at the top.

(i) Unviolated Precept: Inviting and Functional --> Unobtrusive

(ii) Unviolated Precept Contrapositive: Not unobtrusive --> NOT Inviting OR NOT Functional

(iii) Violated Precept: Inviting and Functional --> NOT Unobtrusive

(iv) Violated Precept Contrapositive: Unobtrusive --> NOT Inviting OR NOT Functional

We are given NOT Functional.

Using what rule, can we infer that the AC -- Modern Architects with strong personalities produce buildings that are Unobtrusive -- is MBT?

@

Wait im super confused now... I agree with what you said in the latter half. That's similar to what @ explained to me, I think. But im confused on your the definition of violating the precept. You said violating the precept is confusing sufficient and necessary in the former half; but in the latter half you said violating the precept is failing the necessary. Can you expand on what you mean by they're confusing sufficiency and necessity?

Since its a MBT question, if they confuse sufficiency and necessity, we wouldn't have been able to derive an answer choice.

In regards to the latter half, I'm still slightly confused because from what you said I can only derive (i) A work of architecture of modern architects, who build inviting and functional buildings, are not unobtrusive. But I can't seem to understand how this is derived: (ii) A work of architecture of modern architects, who build non-functional buildings, are not unobtrusive.

@ I think you might be on to something; but so i understand it clearer, do you mind explaining it me with the following example?

Previously, in order to get a high LSAT score and get into Yale, students must study hard.

This rule is no longer true. To get a high LSAT score and get into Yale, students do not need to study hard. Current students let their strong extracurricular activities take over their application, submitting applications that not have a high LSAT score.

If it is agreeable that the above is like the stimulus, then what MBT should, likewise be the following:

Current students who let their strong extra curricular activities take over their application do not need study hard.

The reason, you claim, is because whether the sufficient condition is failed, since the rule is no longer true (If students get a high LSAT score and get into Yale, students must study hard), it must follow that current students who let their strong extra curricular activities take over their application do not need study hard -- otherwise, the rule is still true????

@, No offense, but your explanation is inconsistent... You first claim " IF inviting AND functional THEN unobtrusive"Then you follow that up with the statement "You need both I and f in order to get to unobtrusive."This is diagrammed as

unobtrusive ---> inviting and functional

Clearly, you're confusing necessity and sufficiency since you end your explanation with "not unobtrusive --> not inviting or not functional." Provided as such, I have no idea how you derived your conclusion.

In regards to violating the precept, i don't really understand what you mean. Going against a conditional, is negating a conditional... If this is the case, we get either

(a) Inviting and Functional --> not unobtrusive; or

(b) unobtrustive --> ~inviting or ~functional.

We have ~functional. With the sufficient condition failed, we cannot properly infer the necessary. If this is the case, why is answer choice (A) a MUST BE TRUE answer; when it seems to be the case that it is COULD BE TRUE.