not sure if this will help anyone else, but understanding the answer to this question really helped me understand the question a while back about babies, breast milk, cows milk, and colic -- this seems to me like a more simplified version of that question.
I'm tripped up by the use of "some," which seems really generalizing in answer choice B. could someone explain why the response to answer choice B could not be: "who cares? that might be true of 'some' languages, but who's to say it's true of the proto-indo-europeans?" I feel I have heard JY say a similar explanation for why an AC is wrong before. I agree with why all the other choices are wrong, so perhaps it's that while this does not prove the conclusion false, it weakens the support relationship btw premise and conclusion more than the others do. but it still feels like it relies on quite a bit of assumption that the PIE language is included in answer choice B's "some", just as we need to make assumptions about the fish for answer choice A to hold any standing (which, as JY explained, it doesn't).
this is great to review for formal logic and a cookie cutter trap. if you're given
A > B, then
only conclusions you can make are, if given A, then B; or if given /B, then /A
you cannot affirm the necssary and get a conclusion. you cannot deny the sufficient and get a conclusion. EG:
A > B
B
---
NO CONCLUSION, affirming the necessary does nothing
A > B
/A
---
NO CONCLUSION, denying the sufficient does nothing
Hey 7Sage! I'm Leah, new to the community. I'm hoping to take the June 2018 LSAT, and wasn't sure how early I should sign up? I would like to take it close to my apartment, in Brooklyn, but ideally wanted to wait until February at least just to make sure I would be good for June, over Sept. 2018. Thanks!
I thought that D was correct because the "motivation" for "violating" the focus on patients who are in pain right now was to focus on research/development that will prevent a higher proportion of patients from suffering in pain in the future. JY seemed to really quickly skip over this AC, though it still appears to hold weight to me.
what's more, the clinic administrator never says or hints flat out that what's going on with the research is not a violation—his "but" at the start of his premise sounded more to me like he was beginning by finding a means to justify the violation, not deny it outright.
did anyone else feel this way, or does anyone have a response?
update: I sent a detailed email to lsac about my massive tech issues and they said they can waive fee for future test ONLY if I cancel yesterday’s score before seeing it... this feels insane and like an added handicap after everything that happened yesterday. I at least want to see how I did. they said if I don’t cancel my score I have to pay the $200 to register — a steep fee that’s difficult to afford especially during a pandemic. did anyone else find a way through this?
truly horrible tech experience. I hope it was just me. but my camera (which I had tested many times, and I have a new macbook, all was good) wouldn’t connect and I was trying to get in touch with tech support for over an hour — they would help for a bit, then sign off and leave me hanging. I tried to reboot the program but each time it just made my wait to connect to a technician longer. I was so ready to crush it and in a great mental spot, but the hour and half before the test started was a total nightmare. I really think it impacted my performance and am also at a loss. I hope this was an isolated experience. Once I connected with the proctor she was perfectly nice.
same experience. lost at least 3-5 minutes on RC and LG because apparently I was looking too closely at my screen or my paper.
just a note for the weary: my may 2020 technical experience with proctor U was insane.... utter trash. took june test today and had zero tech problems, no wait. far, far better. the test was really hard IMO, but the tech could be trusted.
a basic math question worth reviewing.
total number of meals sold at restaurants went up from last year to this year
our meals are desirable
number of meals sold at each individual restaurant has decreased
our meals must not be desirable
desirable or not, the truth is that more meals were sold at large, and fewer meals were sold at each individual restaurant.
the only way this would be true is if new restaurants were created (at least one). these new restaurants may sell few meals, and they may not be desirable meals, but regardless, they add to the overall number of meals sold by the restaurant.
this makes a lot of sense to me after watching jy's explanation, though I mistaked the conclusion the first time around to be: we must conclude the generalization is universally true (which I thought was supported by the fact that it's correctly regarded as scientific law). could someone help me sort out how to see the correct conclusion quickly and be sure the other premise is not a conclusion?
How is this not incredibly unfair to those of us who took test in June, May, etc and really wanted to cancel after seeing score but now can't?
if we can't make this live how do we watch recording?
I'm in same boat. Got 169 was PTing mid 170s, had horrific tech issues which totally threw me off, but who knows. Was bummed to be one question away from the goal of 170+ but am shooting for top 5 schools, hopefully with money. 4.0 from college and lots of professional experience / public figure stature from work/writing. Per advice from a mentor who is a prof at harvard law I am taking it again — I don't feel ready, have not been able to study much since I am very involved in organizing against racism + full time work. But I think a lot of it is in the head still, so gonna see what happens. I got the June test for free since my tech was so f'd up in May, so I figure why not, but also slightly worried if I do worse that they'll see it. Keep me posted on what you decide and congrats xx
mistake post