5/5 but wayyyyyyy overtime

@epayne17 damn tough crowd

The rule says the three things are sufficient, not required.

The rule is:

If (Eligible + Saved a life + Went beyond expectations) → Award

That means:

• If all three happen → the award must happen ✔️

• But if one is missing → we cannot say the award won’t happen ❌

Because the rule never said:

ONLY IF these three happen → aw

So this basically just boils down to just because these three conditions are sufficient to get the award, it is not NEEDED there can be other avenues to get the award. So not qualifying one does not automatically disqualify Penn from receiving the award because potentially he can receive the award from a different avenue. making AC E. and B. wrong. The easiest way to make sure Penn does not get the award basically would just be to make sure he does is not even eligible which is why AC A is correct.

The author concludes

If Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm

The question is asking the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred IF which one of the following is assumed. So we want to find something in the answer choices that ensure this CONDITIONAL will follow that if someone expects something will cause damage that they should pay for the damage. AC A. does this by setting the conditional if one expects the actions would lead other ppl to cause damage --> one should pay for the damage. THIS ENSURES that the authors conditional conclusion follows because if this is true than it ensure if Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm. Making the conclusion airtight.

@AlexHaro The author concludes

If Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm

The question is asking the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred IF which one of the following is assumed. So we want to find something in the answer choices that ensure this CONDITIONAL will follow that if someone expects something will cause damage that they should pay for the damage. AC A. does this by setting the conditional if one expects the actions would lead other ppl to cause damage --> one should pay fro damage. THIS ENSURES that the authors cndtional conclusion follows because if this is true than it ensure that if Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm.

I chose D., but after re-reading the stimulus and the last part, it became clear why it was wrong. We are not trying to explain why the theory of relativity should not be counted as predicting that phenomenon (mercury). Rather, we are trying to prove why it (mercury) SHOULD not be cited as evidence for einsteins theory of relativity since he was already aware of it and adjusted for it.

Arguement =

shows contempt or believes harm --> /play practical joke

basically if shows c or believes h than do not play practical joke

contrapositive =

if play practical joke --> /show contempt and /believe harm

basically if you play practical joke then we know it does not show contempt and one does not believe harm.

AC B. is wrong because the original argument and the contrapositive DOES NOT assert when it would be wrong for one to play a joke. We just know what makes one not be able to play a practical joke and if one does do it what it should not have. AC. B. states it would not be wrong for me to play it but we do not know when it would be wrong.

can you not create a contrapositive?

@MelanieGonzalez since it says or only one could be sufficient for it to be triggered

So E is wrong because the conclusion asserts that NO ONE SHOULD BE DENIED THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCIATE WITH on the basis that people may find "acceptance" by those who have the same personal beliefs. Answer choice E asserts that IF DOING SO COULD MAKE IT EASIER TO LIVE AN ENJOYABLE LIFE ONE MAY CHOSE FOR ONESELF THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCAITE. This is wrong because this is creating a set that only those with whom we now it would make it easier to live an enjoyable life should be able to chose for one self the people with whom they will associate. BUT THE AUTHOR ASSERTS THAT NO ONEEEEE should be denied the freedom to choose this accounts even for those that potentially may not make it easier for them to live an enjoyable life.

@JesselynMulet author said "the mosaics should have stayed there." and ends the stimulus with his reasoning on why they should have stayed there with "future archaeologists studying the site might be misled by there abscene," this is the only reasoning he uses to justify why they should not have been removed he does not talk about anything other justifications on why they should of been left there. AC A stated that the only considerations that bear upon the question of whether mosaics should have been removed are archaelogical. If this is assumed then this justifies his argument because he only justifies keeping them there on the basis of an archaeological standpoint and the stimulus assserts that archaeological standpoints are the only considerations that should be beared in this question of whether they should taken or left.

so principle and rule can be used interchangeably in the lsat? If a question asks which principle best justifies the conclusion, can we replace principle with rule if we want?

Question B is correct because the stimulus states that the elimination/reduction of a predator species will have LITTLE impact on the rest of the ecosystem, meaning that it probably wont effect the herbivores or the availability of the edible plants. meaning reduction predator species = we should expect to see LITTLE to NO effect on the ecosystem. Since question asks what goes against this statement we need to look for something that does potentially show a predator species being reduced or eliminated and it having a effect on the ecosystem. AC B does this since once the predator species was eliminated the herbivore species had limited amount of food meaning it effect the plants (less plants avail) and the herbivores (less food for them to eat avail)

@TylerMadani021 nah

@ZachistheLawyerinCharge LMAO

@Jcruzmed Yes

@tlepelstat204 all can imply most many some and few

most can imply many some and few

many can imply some and few

some can imply few

low res summary #2:

opponent view #2 - deceptive, used to bolster a weak case

author view #2 - false, not deceptive, medical expert has to testify to its accuracy

/prohibited --> medical purpose

/medical purpose --> prohibited

can it be represented as such?

@akhan1693 "if" is a sufficent condition indicator

superset: Universe

subset: earth

Being on earth is sufficient for being in the universe, but not necessary. Being in the universe is neccessary for being on earth but not sufficent. You can be on Mars or Pluto and still be part of the universe.

@jozwiakhm I agree was confused if it says no statistical evidence but than JY said selfish is the winner yet there is no evidence.