Can someone explain the differences between this and Must Be True questions? For both answers, my current understanding is that if negated/falsified, the argument falls apart. Is one just stating the obvious, and another says something specific to the content of the stimulus?
I went about this in a completely different way, and still got the right answer (invalid conclusion). Can someone explain to me if this is luck? This is how I did it:
Deliver speech -> vote fails
/(deliver speech) -> assassination attempt fails
FACT: The assassination attempt failed.
Take the contrapositive of the first:
Vote wins -> /(deliver speech)
Create chained conditional:
Vote wins -> /(deliver speech) -> assassination attempt fails.
Based off my chained conditional, it is still not a valid conclusion to say the vote will not pass. It actually CAN pass if the assassination attempt fails, since I have the vote winning as a sufficient condition. Obviously, 7sage did something completely different. Is my line of thinking wrong?
Hi! I live in the city and would love to join up with some people every other week or so to go over LSAT questions, strategy, etc. on the weekends. I'm aiming for 170+ (ideally mid 170s) and trying to take it in February. Let me know if you're interested!
Hi fellow 7Sagers. I just finished taking my fifth prep test, and I have scored almost the same score (156ish) every time. I go back and do blind review and almost always end up in the 170s, so I'm assuming this is just a timing issue. What do you guys recommend on how to move forward? I've started drilling harder questions and have overall found a significant improvement in getting questions correct (e.g. getting very difficult and most difficult drills all correct, sections with max 3 wrong instead of 8-10 and getting 0 wrong on blind review), but when it comes to these PTs I don't know what's happening to me.
For context, I'm about a month and a half into consistently and rigorously studying for the LSAT. Goal is to take it in February next year. I would appreciate advice from any of guys who may have been in similar situations as me. Thanks :)
Since my dog ate my homework, I am very mad.
Complex argument: I am six feet tall. All six foot people play basketball. Therefore I play basketball. All basketball players besides Michael Jordan are worse than Michael Jordan. Therefore, I am worse than Michael Jordan.
Minor premises: I am six feet tall; all six foot tall people play basketball
Major premise/sub conclusion: all basketball players besides MJ are worse than MJ.
Main conclusion: Therefore, I am worse at playing basketball than MJ.
In the explanation for A, it says "Even Lurano...acknowledges the chance of snow melting." Am I missing something? Where does he acknowledge that?