@Kevin_Lin this one is a brainteaser, conclusion through a contrapositive!? That is insane.

Why not E you ask me? (blushes). I thought E had that, 'extreme,' language. "Primary Evidence," and so reading that I was thinking about the other statement after it, and how since the stimulus explicitly states two premises, how can that statement be the Primary Evidence???

Oh answer D, how I love but loath thee....

I am doing this for Wile E Coyote

(I'll try to do an example)

Recent studies have demonstrated sweets-lovers are more likely than non-sweets-lovers to develop a twinkle in their eyes. A related study also confirmed that sweets-lovers are more likely than others to rub their tummy. Therefore, there is a positive correlation between rubbing your tummy and developing a twinkle in your eyes.

Flaw: what about those who after eating sweets never rub their tummy but still have a twinkle in their eyes?

"Its an assumption, in an assumption, inside another assumption" ~ The smart aliens from Rick and Morty. Forgetting this joke, I think one would sort of have to assume in the reading and question itself that C was saying NOT the same thing as the premise.

seems i'm in the, 'breakfast club,' with this question.

SO looks like this question got everyone? '-'

@lysimmons00610 ( ' O ' )

You know, i see where it was wrong for me to choose B. The first sentence states, "never change that set, except by rejecting a belief," and then reading on, "if this were the only rule-one followed, then," one would have to reject some of their beliefs or leave unchanged.

And of course conclusion states how we need a lot of beliefs to survive, those pesky Statistician's claims are wrong.

The key sentence i think is the first, since it states that beliefs you have, "NEVER," change, as in you CANNOT accept new beliefs. So what is the other answer that seems ok? B.

LSAT...it is like the thing that tricks you and its over something explicit but you glance over.

@dignatius2002645 Define, "Screw," as you have used it in your sentence

I cannot be the only one who still cannot quite understand the reasoning behind D's explanation, right? First sentence includes that, 'routinely,' part and then final sentence says, "never to allow ANY of its explicit rules," be broken with no punishment. So for me I did not even see how the author made the mistake of misinterpreting that first part, with, SOMETIMES not punishing. The stimulus just says, IF Routinely nonpunished then Choas.

Could it be that Routinely = Always and thats how we get to Sometimes? The first part and last part seemed straightforward to me.

"Kevvviiiiiiiiiinnnn!!!!" - (Spongebob, Episode 30b, Season 2)

@KevinLin'sOldUserName When I watch your videos I like think you are trapped in a digital dimension (due to the pattern of your background) and that you await for anyone who clicks on your videos to help them. When we log off you are trapped but you are there to help the next person. How do you survive....i do not know. But thank you for helping!

Kevin is that shirt hot at all? I feel like I would sweat a storm

@Steve i hope you are right Steve

@TiaraLaulusa

I had a question. So for E. Looking at it logically how do I translate it?

I diagrammed it like this:

P1: If Appear Pru then Resent

Conc: If Appear Pru then Imprudent

Assumption: If Resent then Imprudent.

When I read E, "It is imprudent to cause people to resent you" It seems backwards. ( IF Imprudent then Resent)

You mentions the structure of, A → B, therefore A → C. and B → C. So for me E is read as, If C then B.

Please tell me where I went wrong. (Not about my life either please...)

@Kevin_Lin Please do, some of us need it. (you now have 1 person demanding it)

@BrandonBaker one thing i can say to that is, (depending on what path you take in your law career) you never know when you might have nothing to go off of, and might need to have to rely on testimony. Could be a good thing to keep in mind, even if the testimony is silly it could help you and your client.

@TobiStein Tobistein was seen at the grocery store buying apples. Since there are blue apples now after Tobistein left, he must of turned them blue.

rata ratta ratarataratta rattaratta ratta ratta

4/5. or as the new gen says, 6/7

Chat is this parallel parking?

Now I know why Winnie the Pooh Bear never had a fox character....

Slow and steady wins the race.....unless you are taking the beloved LSAT. The most critically acclaimed, 1# in America, belly spanking, heart-wrenching test!!!!