I guess squandering a sum of money does not imply harm, even to oneself.

It's like math, very mechanical here.

MB→D→/P

--------------------

Therefore, MB→/P

and

MB→/S.

Missing piece: /P→/S.

The conclusion, MB→/S (or S→/MB; that the Spirit is not a Material Body, or vice versa) follows logically when assumed that/P→/S. That is the missing piece.

I'm interested. Is this a Zoom session or what? Thanks for the offer!

That’s helpful in reiterating the main point, thank you.

You say, “people who are familiar with intellectual stimulation (cognitive faculties) are made happier by physical pleasures (not cognitive faculties)” but isn’t the stimulus saying that rather ‘people who are familiar with intellectual stimulation merely receive more enjoyment or gratification from physical pleasures?’

And just cause one enjoys or receives gratification from something, how does that make em happy?

Havin a hard time. Maybe I’m missing something. Thanks!!

Nonsense about the loser stuff and negative self-talk! But i feel ya on the adverse mental health effects of COVID, staying inside and 2020.. after some hours of studying i take a walk, or go out and skateboard for a few hours. Running, walking, movement and music is always a great help.

A→B

-----------

Therefore, Prof, says A→/C

Missing piece B↔/C.

Lot of extraneous detail on this. I don't know that I wouda got this one had I not written out the lawgic. Pretty tough otherwise, I think. Once your write out the lawgic, as JY did, you can virtually eliminate C, D, and E pretty fast tho.

I'm interested.

SethCeely@moeshasmith100867.net

I swear some of these Parallels have parallels to SA or PSAs or even MSS/M/CBT than I initially realized. Once you accurately lawgic map the stimulus, you just gotta hunt.

Once I logically mapped out the stimulus, I basically was hunting for what felt like a sufficient or psuedo sufficient condition to bridge to conclusion. anyone else appraoch as such?

#help (Added by Admin)

that kind of incompetence warrants a refund. not to mention the psychological harm imposed upon the unsuspecting test taker. sounds like a nightmare. i hope you get a refund, justice.

your mental health is most important. get your mind off of it for a day or a couple, if you can. keep going and always do what feels right in your heart. that suffering is hard and relatable, and the strength required to keep going and persevere must be acknowledged. you got this. much love.

Stimulus: I, the Astronomer, have asserted not X, contrary to my opponents, who have failed repeatedly to debunk me. Furthermore, their support/evidence is inconclusive, and therefore I'm right.

AC A: The author is not making any ad hominem attacks. He's still engaging the substance of the argument or the issue at hand. He's not like shitting on his opponents and calling them idiots.

AC B: Exactly. I was hoping for/anticipating this kinda AC. 'My opps haven't proven me wrong, therefore my (unsubstantiated) thesis is correct.' (I mean - they couldn't prove me wrong anyway with their shitty inconclusive evidence).

AC C: Author does not ignore - he actually does opposite of this AC. Thats not really why this is wrong tho - its not the flaw. Where his opponents think they've got their theory in the bag, he's like nope, let me assert an alt explanation - I'll just contradict your theory. That's not why he is wrong tho, hes wrong b/c he hastily concludes his assertion to be true, on the basis of his opponents' lack of ability to debunk such assertion.

AC D: Who said anything about rational discussion or criticism? Are we not currently engaging in a rational discussion. I mean maybe, maybe not - your kind of inserting your idea then about what does and does not constitute a rational discussion and who the hell are you?

AC E: Sure he does fail to define the term "meteroids", but that's not what invalidates his argument. He could have accurately defined meteroid, and his argument would still have the very same flaw. So cross off. Furhter, we take the stimulus at face value. We can safely assume each word in a given stimulus on the LSAT to mean the common definition set forth in Websters or dictionary.com. We also aren't reading a contract or piece of legislation so no need to worry about defined terms, at least yet.

AC A just fails to meet the standard of proof required to chip away/weaken support - too small of a sample size. Sample sizes are a recurring LSAT thing.

C - yeah just cuz everyone died already doesn't mean the Support Group folks didn't live a lil longer. If we take that, C, to be true, it does undermine the Conclusion written as last sentence.

I just don't even care to give the time necessary to think about this one, and will skip it every time. It is canceled, at least for me.

Necessary Assumption: you need it to not die.

I was thinking about Shaq posted in the paint lolz

I was wondering that too. Anyone got input on this? #help

Darn. I ruled out C cause I reasoned that if these birds can easily adapt to new environments then they'd have little trouble adjusting to their new northern, warmer-climate habitat. I guess that entails an assumption that they can't withstand their current one, which just clearly wrecks everything I thought true lol. I can see how that my initial logic (or lack thereof) actually defeats itself in this context cause, as JY says, if they can easily adapt, why would these birds move at all?

word this is exactly how i thought about it too and got it right.

Just take your time, nice and slow at first and just focus on accuracy. Speed will come after establishing confidence, accuracy, and familiarity with these weird LSAT LR questions.

I worked as a Secretary at a biglaw firm previously. the law is hyper-detail oriented. Just be vigilant for words that modify things, commas, periods, "all" "some" "Most" "At least" are all common phrases that have been very helpful in nailing down the meaning.

may be easier for some peeps to approach this as a "Weakening" question

I have revisited this question and my above comment is so far off.. lol. thats a sign of progress.

In this context, I'd say it is a safe bet that he means 'consumers who are unable to to explain their preferences / unable to explain why they choose certain clothing items and put others down.'

awesome explanation. really appreciate the thorough walkthru here as I thought it was A too, and a buncha assholes on here out here gaslightijng fools n invalidating for choosing an answer one could reasonably infer to be correct, merely saying "nope no relationship here. so what?" Cabrones.

How does A not speak to the safety of that particular plant/rate of injury? If workers are getting additional safety training, doesn't that mean that the plant is safer due to the safe and cautious practices of workers?