@dylanemein This is how i mapped it out! Easier for me too than chaining it up, way faster.
@loaiza
C is correct because it is saying that the mild winter allowed for birds to forage naturally instead of at feeders.
This alone does not tie to the conclusion. What does more foraging rather than feeders mean for having a bigger than average bird population? There is a gap here. C fills that gap.
I hope the following causal chain helps:
Milder winter--> more foraging --> less feeders--> less vulnerable to predators --> less birds die from predators than usual --> more birds --> larger than usual bird population.
starting with khan academy is so real loll
For the foundations, yes absolutely. At least when you get to the part on the logic of intersecting sets and the formal arguments and formal flaws. Even later on in the CC i am often going back to reference the formal arguments, and what yields a valid conclusion. Also, watching one of the free videos on study plans helps, and the instructor might mention what they recommend making cheat sheets on.
For the rest, depends on your study style. I personally find that physically writing down notes helps me understand the content better but could be different for everyone. Once I got to LR, I made a note sheet for every different LR question type, which included patterns in the right answers, and patterns in the wrong answers and that helped me.
Ultimately is whatever helps your understanding and works for you!
I found this much more easier to explain if you are just treating the question as an RRE question, and not whatever this video said.
@nbbran21839 This makes sense now. I was confused as to why D would matter if gravity mattered because what if gravity was the reason that Mars can hold the volcanoes, not the thickness of the earth.
i translated to exist + determine --> as intelligent as humans. Then when I kicked the sufficient conditions up into the domain, i was left with "as intelligent as humans.
Then with the premises that we cannot spend any spacecrafts, and that sentient beings are at least as intelligent as humans, then they must not be able to send spacecrafts either. However, since we are in the domain of determining their existence and that they exist, we must be the ones to send the spacecraft. Does that make sense?
i love it when i get hard questions like this right but struggle over the one or two start difficulty questions because i overthink it
I diagrammed as fully qualified working for arvu -->/hire most productive and the contrapositive being: hire most productive --> /fully qualified working for arvue.
Therefore if Delacruz should be hired, then there are no fully qualified candidates working for arvue and by implication, he must be the most productve. Does this make sense? I still got the right answer
I also eliminated answer choice a because it says "certain" plant and animal species because we don't know what certain species are. We basically don't want to let any species diminish
@Dbarsemian i think the use of "sometimes" does not make it a rule to justify the consumer advocate's population
@JackSykes I eliminated A because it used "is obligated" instead of "should" because I understood that sentence as saying that even though a CEO is not obligated ... it still should maximize profit. Meaning it has no obligation to, but it still should.
@ose209139 Thank you!!
Hello fellow 7sagers! I took the LSAT last year and received a low score but decided to apply anyways. I was waitlisted and then denied. I will be reapplying in the fall, with a new LSAT score. Regarding personal statement I am wondering if I should re use the personal statement or change it. Moreover, should I mention that I was denied last year and the work I put in this year to get a higher LSAT score? Thank you!
How do we know that meat yields will decrease it antibiotics are phased out, is it not possible that they will stay the same rather than decrease?
For those confusing negation with the contrapositive:
the contrapositive is when we negate the necessary condition, which in turn negates the sufficient condition. (A-->B turns into /B-->/A) The contrapositive also allows us to understand logically equivalent claims.
When we negate "a claim about a relationship" we are not negating the necessary condition but rather the claim itself. For example, a biologist may say if cat then mammal, (C-->M) but a science skeptic may negate that and say it is not the case that if cat then mammal (C and /M).
@Dbarsemian I put that too at first, but after watching the video, I think it's not a sub-conclusion because there is no premise providing support for it. The first sentence does not provide any support for it, it just provides context to what restaurants are doing as a solution to food waste.
I eliminated A on the basis that it was not a comparative claim.