I am still having trouble understanding the correct answer choice. From what I understand of answer choice C, it says that there are more unsponsored paintings (sponsored means private individuals, so unsponsored means the academy) than unsponsored sculptures that are produced. Are we supposed to conclude from this that the increased quantity of paintings makes it more likely that there will be a greater number of innovative painting than innovative scupltures? I think I may be reading/misinterpreting something, and if someone could point my mistake out, that would be great!
Thank you so much everyone!!! :smiley:
@ said:
What issues in environmental law are you hoping to focus on?
I am not sure exactly what I want to focus on yet, but I really want to find an area that complements my economics degree, so ideally, something regarding allocation of resources and such.
Also, we deal with the cold largely by dressing warm and hanging in for the promise of summer. :smile:
I just want to say thank you, so much, to 7sage for having such a great, affordable LSAT curriculum. I followed their advice and studied for about a year before taking the December 2017 LSAT. I scored a 162 and got into the University of Calgary, my top choice since I want to study environmental law! I'm super excited to start my program in September (and move somewhere slightly warmer than Winnipeg, Manitoba)!
Thanks 7sage!!
Still confused about why E is wrong... As far I can see, " the article states that areas with lower speed limits HAD [past event] lower vehicle related fatality rates than other areas," is entirely consistent with, "that will not be true for long [future event], since vehicle related fatality rates are rising in areas with lower speed limits."
It could be evidence against saying "all areas with lower speed limits have lower vehicle related accidents" but it does nothing against this being true in the past.
Perhaps E is wrong because it claims that this is evidence?
Some clarification would be appreciated!