In this case it wouldn't really make sense I don't think but to better answer your question I'll attempt to explain it - to negate an exclusive or you're saying that it's not the case that either of those conditions will happen alone. If you watch J.Y.'s truth table video on it it might make more sense but you're basically saying the only two cases that Anne will have after the negation are the case where she neither takes a leave of absence from Techno and returns in a year nor quits her job at Techno (which I diagrammed above). Or the second case, where you're saying that she will do both of those things, i.e., Anne will take a leave absence from Techno and return in a year and she'll also quit her job at Techno. Which is why I'm questioning whether it makes sense to even consider the second case lol. But that's how the logic works out.

A := Anne taking leave of absence from Techno and returning in a year

B := Anne quitting her job at Techno

original statement ==> A ------> B

negated ==> A ------> B

which is logically equivalent to

A and B

In other words, it is not the case that Anne will take a leave of absence from Techno and return in a year and it's also not the case that Anne will quit her job at Techno.

Hope that helps

Similar to blah blah below, I did this question with embedded conditionals:

Premises:

A := Understanding a word

B := Knowing its dictionary definition

C := Understanding the words that occur in the definition

(A → B) → (A → C)

Premises: we have an instance of people (e.g., babies) who don't understand the words that occur in the definition.

==> C

Necessary failed, contrapose back.

==> (A → B)

which is equivalent to

A and B

In other words, it could be the case that people (e.g. babies) understand the words they're saying even if they don't understand the words' dictionary definition.

Which matches AC (E).

I'd say that's accurate. I do get pretty nervous during timed PTs which can make it harder to focus on my skills, but I have noticed it got better the last PT I took. I usually study for at least 3 or 4 hours every day. The semester started again last week so it might not be quite that much, but most days it will be at least 2 hours. I try and take a PT at least once a week, but I'm going to try and increase that to two as the November test date gets closer.

I’m in the same position and decided to push it back to October. I don’t wanna go in feeling like I could’ve used the extra month of studying and/or having it in my mind that "oh, I can just retake it." While that is true - and I’m not saying it’s bad to retake it - ideally, you only take it once. Also, I think having that in your mind can be detrimental to your studying process because it could lead you to not put in all the work necessary for the score you want the first time around. I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, it’s just something I’ve read and have heard from a couple of people.

Granted, I don’t know that we’ll ever have the feeling of "I’m 100% certain that I’m ready to take it," but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pushing it back a bit and giving yourself some more time to perfect your strategy and/or improve trouble areas. Which is what I’ve decided to do.

I couldn't agree more about the videos. You could get an answer right but your thought process be completely wrong. What better way to learn something than understanding the thought process of someone who has mastered the subject!

I purchased the PowerScore bibles and The LSAT Trainer and the LSAT SuperPrep and of course 7Sage so right now I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed as to the best way to go about learning the core concepts and honing my thought processes lol. Although I do believe, when learning material that is conceptually difficult, it's great to have more than one resource because sometimes the way one person explains something may just speak to you more than another way, but at the same time I'd like to have some consistency, especially starting out.

But I guess that's just kind of how it goes with the beast that is the LSAT, smh lol.

"dush-hound," love it J.Y. haha

I don’t like being like this because it’s unproductive, but I have to say this question is laughably bad. I mean wow...

Will 7Sage automatically include PT 87 with your membership or is it something we'll have to buy to access?

Can someone please tell me if my reasoning is way off base here? I mean more off base than the fact of it obviously not leading me to the correct AC. I, unlike almost anyone else it looks like, found AC (E) very attractive. I took the first part of the stimulus to be more context - just reporting what "some survey shows," and then the author concludes those people were biased in favor of Lopez.

"Okay, author - why were they biased?" Well because Lopez eventually won the election. I took this as the real support for the conclusion. So after thinking wtf, what does Lopez eventually winning have to do with people being surveyed immediately after a debate that obviously occurred before the election? Then my prephrase was "Well if Lopez was leading by a wide margin in the polls, then the people surveyed may have stated that they thought Lopez was better because they wanted to appear to be supporting a majority candidate, and didn't want to seem dumb by appearing to support a candidate few endorsed and/or been more likely to endorse a majority candidate for some other reason." Then I saw AC (E) and thought perfect.

Quite a rabbit hole I went down, I know. A lot of assumptions I'm realizing as I type this. But that's what I was thinking...

#help

admin. note: added #help

Hmmm, I don't know about this question.

Analogous situation:

My friend tells me that few people were learning to play golf in the 1980s and early 90s and asks me why it's so popular now. I tell him it's because Tiger Woods showed up in the late 90s.

I would say that precisely explains why golf became so popular.