Hi! I am in Vancouver and would love to study together! I’m taking my first LSAT in September and would really appreciate study buddies. Thank You!

As someone who acted in Hamlet and many other Shakespeare plays, we always get a full script so it was unreasonable to assume an actor did not have a copy of the play.

“Cousin shrimp”

Domain Expansion: Conditional Simplification

He really said F*ck them kids

Im so cooked

PLS HELP with 4.2: “his arguments persuaded the king to go to the war with France, which prevented a war with Germany”

I interpreted the bare versions of the scentence to be “His Arguments Prevented” with everything else being modifiers, thus the word “With” I interpreted as a referring back to “His arguments” instead of the correct answer of “war with France”. Can anyone help explain what fallacy I made here so I can better understand. Thank you!!

Are Assumptions what must be true in order for the premise to support the conclusion?!

I think the Disney argument has the most support for its conclusion. The fact that Walt holds a pass, and has never prostrated himself both support the conclusion that Walt sacrificed 10 goats.

The tiger one is very reasonable with one support for its conclusion, and it is a very straightforward one.

The cat one doesn’t have any strong clear support because there is no clear connection between the fact that it ate and the knocked over trash can.