I thought Main Point questions directly reference the conclusion. Why is that not the case here? #feedback #help

But there seems to be a gap between patients being more ill and the past not being applicable. So what if they are more ill?

The correct answer where seems imprecise

Why is this worded "regulation of the activity of providing those services?" v "regulating those services?"

'activity' here is ambiguous.

C feels like a massive assumption. Choosing it requires assuming that if the poison worked, then the pike would not return.

Exactly! I came here to say the same!

Qn 15 is excellently-thought out, wow.

I absolutely agree with you. Totally.

But this still sounds to me like they disagree on if it is the only way to do so. Doesn't 'supplementary' mean 'in addition to,' which encompasses the 'dance' in this case?

are likely, but not necessarily* (for good measure).

Right on. Answer choice D actually does describe a flaw. I also wonder how to establish this 'hierarchy'.

Yeah the question seems weak. The difference was the person's 'understanding of the word' and not the argument's use of it. lol

But if the claim is true, and C is correct, then red cars would be banned.

I thought we have to accept the truth of ALL the premises on the LSAT. It says here that "If...true." Why would we question that? #help

Exactly. The LSAT needs to be consistent. And the fact they have an answer choice (C) that says just that makes it even more confusing.

Hahahahaha, nice one

Missed the 'almost' at the beginning of the sentence! Lol

I agree to what you say, even if your comment is not in direct response to the author's main point which -- as may be seen under the annotations 'njtnoleta' which arguably, and by implication, not necessarily, denote the commenter's preferred name on this interface owned, maintained and ostensibly designed by 7Sage, the company offering the service on whose interface we have written these comments -- centred on the frustration brought about by the previous lessons' evasion of many of those concepts we had just covered in earlier lessons in their explanations of the Sufficient Assumption problem sets, coupled with the anachronistic use of biconditionals, a concern he asserted would not be shared unless one were struggling with Lawgic.

I didn't even read the entire answer choice as I expected the correct answer to explicitly say one of those modes of travel.

What does 'in general' mean in the correct answer choice? A category 'The Arts' or funding something 'generally' ie. as a collective decision?

#help (Added by Admin)

I discredited B because I thought there was no way the LSAT would require that we make the assumption that short attention spans meant children were harder to teach. It sounds exactly like the sort of thing we'd be told NOT to assume.

Exactly. This is what threw me off. I also thought that for conditions to be the same, it was necessary that the committees both exist AND that their existence be required by law.

Seems the LSAT doesn't look into how they come about, but focusses on their existence or lack thereof (in medium-sized and large workplaces), as that's what impacts the rate of accidents.

Just one other thing to learn about the LSAT, lol. I feel like I am over-thinking some aspects of the LSAT.

.

#help

Still struggling to be persuaded on this one.

That % of fat consumed remained the same but fat consumption increased doesn’t necessarily mean that they were eating more food. Logically speaking. To assert that, we are compelled to make an assumption about the nutritional composition of the individuals' diet, something which the LSAT apparently never does.

All the consumption increase might be 100% vegetables and no fat. That disproves the supposed correct answer that they must have been eating more.

To assume B as the correct answer requires the assumption that ‘eating more’ necessarily means ‘consuming more fat.’

Still struggling to be persuaded on this one.

That % of fat consumed remained the same but fat consumption increased doesn't necessarily mean that they were eating more food. Logically speaking. To assume that is to assume the nutritional composition of the people's diet, which the LSAT apparently never does.

All the consumption increase might be 100% vegetables and no fat. That disproves the supposed correct answer that they must have been eating more.

To assume B as the correct answer requires the assumption that 'eating more' necessarily means 'consuming more fat.'

This is a brilliant explanation. However, it requires that one 'fish' for a possible justification for the 'increased fat intake.'