it does.. your sentence just has a double negative that is hard to understand... the contrapositive of your sentence is: if she does either, she must have been offered a one year fellowship
#help
for Q. 27 in A, "without providing details." How are we to interpret "details"? I'm guessing LSAC doesn't mean details in a colloquial sense? Thoughts?
#help ok.. so for question 13, the passage states that "... but their taped conversations occasionally contained some spanish with no change in situational factors" (lines 53-55). BUT answer choice A is talking about when situational factors changed. I went with A when timed, but switched to E because of that during review. So, is the implication here that there WAS a change in situational factors when the family switched to Spanish? That seems to be the only way that situational factors can account for the "phenomenon" in the passage. If so, wouldn't that be a direct contradiction of the passage? Really confused
PT 13, Sec. 2, Q26. Does "the only" in answer choice B refer to a necessary, or sufficient condition? Also, what exactly is "the condition" and "phenomenon" in B? Thanks
Admin note: edited title and edited out "#help" *The "#" marks a heading.
#help Can someone parse out the grammar for answer choice D, Q27 more precisely? And also parse out the grammar for the first sentence of the last paragraph? Thanks
How accurate is this ETS conversion score tool? Do you think law schools will use it? A 167V & 166Q give you a 173 LSAT. Also do you guys think more law schools (such as Stanford/Yale/UChicago) will start accepting GRE for the 2018/2019 cycle?
https://www.ets.org/gre/institutions/about/law/comparison_tool?WT.ac=gre_law_comparison_180302&utm_source=general&utm_medium=general&utm_campaign=gre&utm_content=law_comparison
don't think an extra degree is worth it, esp. if you're tagging on more loans. I guess you can always take some PP courses that you're interested in, and leverage that without getting the degree. As for WE, people from all walks of life attend law school.. you don't need something crazy impressive.. it's not B-school
E is saying when marine species are exposed to a GRADUAL change in sea level, they will STILL be vulnerable to extinction, although to a MUCH LESSER DEGREE than when exposed to a dramatic and sudden change in sea level. This idea is consistent with the passage, which says a gradual fall in the sea level caused marine organisms to die out. Does that clear things up?
i think the key to question 22 is in the third paragraph where the author discusses both criticisms as one entity, and says they see philanthropy as a prelude to state charity, as though state charity was inevitable
The painters were less limited to painting portraiture, NOT "the Impressionist style." There's a subtle difference. I think you matched "more freedom" to "less limited," but you have to consider the meaning of the whole sentence. Also, "preempt" as used in the passage means "replaced," I think.
#help seems like analogy questions are my worst. For D in question 21, wouldn't the homeowner benefit when others in the neighborhood fix the contaminated ground water problem? Can someone please explain in detail why D is wrong, and E is better?