Yes, I agree with Christopher it is a bi conditional. However, it's a mistaken reversal, but, that's not the issue at hand because the statements have to be true.
(Military deterrence) : the threat of retaliation can deter aggressing nations.
Hence, to have military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power that aggressing nation can’t defend.
Conditional Logic:
(threat of retaliation ---> deter attacks)
(to deter attacks/maintain military deterrence--->threat of retaliation)
C. Although, I agree with you that C is an attractive answer choice. I think what deterred me was thinking, “is there another reason for a nation to not attack?” Perhaps there are economic reasons to not attack. Also, why does a nation have to attack? What if the nation wants to be a chill nation?
Thats great news! Congrats
Hi guys, my name is Kyle, I am also looking to take the LSAT in November. Thanks!
My bad I meant the November LSAT. I plan on sending my apps in December!
I think it depends if you have great stats. If you have a gpa in the 75th percentile and a LSAT in the 75th percentile you will probably be fine.
Hey guys, my name is Kyle and I'm looking to form another study/accountability group. I currently have a group and they are fantastic. However, I'd like to get different points of view when it comes to LR to look and see which thought processes are effective.
I got a 157 diagnostic on my first PT and I am looking to score in the 168-175 range. Let me know if you'd like to form a group!
Hey Meek,
My name is Kyle and I am also around the same place as you in the CC. Let's form a study group!
My friend Will Hunting has done this before. He is also a janitor at MIT.
Hey guys, I've spent quite a while on weakening questions in the CC. I took a break and formulated a weakening question for fun to see if I properly understand them. Would you mind taking a look at my Weakening Q and letting me know if I have a fundamental understanding of it?
Question:
AlwaysBeClosing: Every time I sit down at the couch, the dogs run up and sit on my lap. They must really like me because I don't see them doing this with anybody else.
Friend: My dogs are trained to find the weakest human in the room to get treats. Then, they sit on that person's lap. Therefore, my dogs don't actually like you, they just want treats.
AlwaysBeClosing: :(
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made by the Friend in response to AlwaysBeClosing?
(A) ABC has never encountered a dog that didn't like him.
(B) The Friend's dog gets treats frequently before ABC comes over to the Friend's house.
(C) ABC's mom considers him to be an emotionally strong person.
(D) The dogs sit on the laps of people they've known for a long time. ABC has known them since birth.
(E) The dogs don't like most people.
Thanks!
Hey thanks sassyloni for your advice!
I started not to worry about the time and I'm having a way better time.
Hey guys, I just started doing problem sets and I am having issues with the timing aspect of it. It takes me a while to understand and comprehend the stimulus. As a result, I am usually rushing through the last 2 questions with less than a minute left.
For those of you that have experience.. when did you start seeing improvements in timing? Do you have any advice for improving the speed at which you comprehend/understand the question?
I appreciate any suggestions.
-Kyle
C) If a nation fails to attack another nation it must be the case that it believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation.
The concept of military deterrence requires an (aggressing) nation that will be deterred from attacking on the basis of fear of retaliation.
What if a nation IS NOT an aggressing nation? What reason would they have to attack?
There are many reasons to not attack another nation outside of the potential retaliatory attack from the other nation.
The scope of C is too broad when we are talking about potential aggressor nations.
Does that make sense?