It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Are we allowed to ask for explanations for specific questions on the June 2019 LSAT? I'm working through them now and am stumped on one LR question.
Thanks a ton!
Comments
I wonder if those of us who got the June results could start a small group and begin to BR it all together leading up to the July exam?
Yes let’s do this!
I'm in!
Are you guys joining the BR call tonight led by @"Michael.Cinco" ? I'm just starting to (gulp) review the test on my own, and it's so disheartening. It's like I wasn't even myself. I never, ever miss this many on my PTs. Ugh.
I didn’t know there was a BR call on the June test. But yes... would also be down to create a group!
I
The word "consequently" pretty clearly denotes some sort of chronological/causal sequence--in other words, "consequently, bla bla happened" translates to: "because of what I've just told you, bla bla happened"
So to give another example, I could say, "the chicken laid an egg. consequently, a new, fertile chicken was born." If you take out the consequently, either could feasibly precede the other. Like, maybe the new, fertile chicken was born, and then the chicken laid an egg. But the word "consequently" tells us that the chicken laid an egg first, and then a new fertile chicken was born (and like, the reasonable interpretation here is that the egg hatched, although I guess technically it could have been a totally different egg).
Hope this helps.
Hi @taschasp , thx for your heart and help. But it doesn't do much for me .IN this case, the question I have, involves IC and MC. Which IC can be introduced with consequently as well as MC in actual LSAT, many times occurred prior, Thx anyways