Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.6K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4.1K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 647 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
PTC2.S2.Q17: Is LSAC trolling me or am I just tripping?
Ashley2018-1
Alum Member
So I was utterly confused after reading the first sentence. I just didn't get how they were able to use the color of gazelle teeth to tell whether a group of humans were nomadic or not. I just don't understand how this "support" supports the conclusion that N was nomadic but C were not. How would the color of gazelle teeth tell you anything about human lifestyle?
What are you even supposed to do after reading an argument like this and being utterly confused? I can skip but that just delays the inevitable. I have to come back it. How do you talk yourself out of confusion?
Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-2-question-17/