I eliminated A on the basis that it was not a comparative claim.
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
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?
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
starting with khan academy is so real loll
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).
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!
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.
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?