Hi guys,
I am currently prepping for 2021 April LSAT and it has been so hard since I work full-time in advisory. I have finished all the LSAT prep courses and are doing prep tests now. Looking for someone to meet once a week via zoom/in-person ( I am currently in California and will be back to nyc in December) to go over prep tests and keep each other accountable.
Thanks!
Best,
Sherry
I got this right and I dont think we even need to discuss why answer b,c,d are wrong. It does not help the premise justify the conclusion!!!
Because the population of 13-16 declines-> video sales declines. I don't know how b,c,d are even helping weaken this relationship. E is helping because even though the premise is correct, the premise does not lead to the conclusion because the people who buy the video games are actually over 17 and thus the sales wont be affected
ok so to my understanding this is what the stimulus tells me:
Nuclear is a part of Cholora. One found two genes in nuclear-> nuclear had undergone endosymbosis:
Why c is wrong: C is just randomly putting together a bunch of information.
Per your explanation, nothing is engulfing cholora. It is nuclear, within cholora, that is undergoing the endosymbosis process.
you dont know that though. That's the point. Where did you get your assumption of L having more aluminium if the cans in L were recycled.
To paraphrase the argument, the author is saying: Half of the cans in M are recycled from L-> therefore M contains twice as many aluminium cans as L. The question here is: we do not know if M really contains twice as many aluminium cans as L because we do not know if L, before recycling, equals to half of M. C bridges the gap by saying, yes, L completely equals to M because there is nothing lost in the process. To your point, D is not right because even though L's aluminium are all made from recycled aluminium, it does not guarantee anything, and why do you want to choose an answer that throws off the argument. We want to choose an answer that bridges the argyment.