I haven't

Interested!

Please add me: lulu@guneetkohli1216.edu...

@babridger17390 at Backbay Hilton?

I think it's because distinguish → accurate is assumed/implied in the stimulus. If you make distinguish → (recognize → accurate) true, then there will be a "some" relationship between accurate and (recognize → accurate ), which doesn't make any sense to me. In addition, we are trying to prove the relationship indicated in the conclusion when you say distinguish → (not recognize → not accurate), isn't the entire conclusion already assumed to be true? Then why should we prove it?

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

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

@abrel07415 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.

never mind, problem solved!

Never mind, I think I got it!

never mind! I think I got it.

#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 I will really appreciate if you can answer the following questions for me. 1. 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."?

Thanks!!!!!

@shannontroncoso517You will be automatically approved to receive the same accommodations on the September 2019 LSAT !

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?

@eugeneegonzalez811 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.

@eugeneegonzalez811 I think so... but it seems that the July test doesn’t count towards any of the limits

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?