I think the lsat writer for this question might have broken everyones brain on this one by selecting the wrong answer as the correct answer... clearly C is correct and we are trying super hard to to prove the incorrect answer, E, correct. Every single comment here is pointing out the same thing - C violates the 'MUST ENSURE' rule by saying 'CANNOT DETERMINE', aka cannot ensure. and E doesn't violate 'HIGHEST PRICE IT CAN COMMAN ON OPEN MARKET' by saying 'will reduce the price' because we are just lowering the bar for what the highest is, but we aren't saying that it will be sold to second highest bidder or below. This answer is flat out wrong

@GarrettLey loooool

stimulus has most and more. I just looked for both of those in the answers and wallah

@Kevin_Lin I think I get it.

Putting the negation in the Necessary condition, (If A -> /B or If B -> /A) means: if you kill A then you MUST NOT kill B.

Meaning you dont have to kill A, but if you do, then you must not Kill B.

Here, you can leave both alive / not kill at all.

VERSUS:

Putting the negation in the Sufficient condition (If /A -> B or If /B -> A) means: If you dont kill A, then you must kill B.

Meaning, you must kill one or the other.

Somebody's gotta die.

And the 'Must' here is not an indicator, tied to bran or rob, its describing a necessity for 'being joeffrey'. in this case, to be joeffrey, he must kill one or the other, someones gotta die.

Let me know if im understanding it correctly now.

Q2 Sentence #1:

Is 'must' not a necessary condition? if it is, wouldn't Bran (idea immediately following the indicator) be the necessary condition (group 2), aka appearing after the arrow? meaning:

R -> /B or B -> /R

Why is the explanation showing:

/R -> B or /B -> R

(I know it seems identical, but its not, the negations are flipped. one allows you to connect to the chain the other does not. Im struggling to understand why we chose this order, the video doesn't explain this well.)

it literally says 'my objection to teaching chess'. That feels like sklar is explicitly stating what the disagreement is about.

Is that right or wrong to take that as explicitly pointing to what the disagreement is about??

DOLPHINS ARE MAMALS #DOLPHINSLIVESMATTER