@ at Backbay Hilton?

@You will be automatically approved to receive the same accommodations on the September 2019 LSAT !

That the risks would be otherwise spread over the rest of the people is not reflected in AC B. Will this be considered a mismatch?

never mind, I got my answer!

I have my accommodation approved for the July test but I am thinking of taking the September Test instead of the July one. Do you know when should I expect to receive another accommodation letter for the September test?

Thanks!!!!!

the antonym of "some...not" is all

hard to translate "all that is required..."

@ said:

To reiterate what was already said above, they mean the same thing. However neither means 0-99. "At least one is not" is from 1-100.

"At least one is not" means "some not". Since some /at least one is 1-100, some not/at least one not is 0-99, because 1 not means 100 - 1=99 (for example, if one dog among 100 dogs is not a german shepherd, that means 99 dogs are german shepherds) 100 not means none/0.

#help how do you know that "XYZ sold off all its diesel-powered trucks last year" is actually "XYZ sold off all its diesel-powered trucks by last year or last year", but not "all its diesel-powered trucks were sold off last year by XYZ" (which is Diesel-powered truck → sold off last year). The statement clearly doesn't indicate sold off last year → diesel-powered truck.

#help1. Why is the negation of A translated as “most farmers who CF will never grow AFF” instead of “In some cases, most farmers who CF will never grow AFF”? Isn’t the negation of “A → B” “A some B“. If we exclude the “In some cases”, doesn’t the negation become “A → B“? 2. If we know that CF leads to abandoning of AFF, which leads to poor soil structure. Isn’t the premise CF → AFF→poor? If so, isn’t AFF → CF already assumed?

#help#help we are told that the negation of A → B is A some B or A and B. So how can we apply this rule to the negation of answer choice D? In other words, how do we negate most or all teachers underqualified → hiring more teachers would not improve the achievement of ANY students? Isn't it "IN SOME CASES, if most/all teachers were underqualified, hiring more teachers would improve some students' achievement."?

Interested!

@ I am not sure if this is going to be retroactive. Sorry, I should have said "I guess so..." The LSAC only said that they just discussed the changes and it is possible that these changes will be implemented.

@ I think so... but it seems that the July test doesn’t count towards any of the limits

Please add me: lulu@.edu...

I haven't