@"Dillon A. Wright" Dude. You're a boss. JY and Alan did such a great job in hiring you. Having to keep the peace with all of us LSAT fiends is no small task. :)
@ENTJ said:
Dude. You're a boss. JY and Alan did such a great job in hiring you. Having to keep the peace with all of us LSAT fiends is no small task. :)
Hey Alan here. Sorry that was a mistake! You definitely don't lose access to your problem sets. I'm away from my computer right now, so I rolled back the server configuration rather than fix the issue. Please let me know if it did or did not help!
I'll pass it on to Alan to see what can be done. I can't reproduce it on my end so I'm not sure what's going on there. :( Do you have flash player turned off or on at the settings page?
... />
I see that as "If Alan then he goes to the ... park, therefore alan does not go or chris ... does not go." Obviously Alan did go, so we can ... 't say that alan did not go and we ...
...
I see that as "If Alan then he goes to the ... park, therefore alan does not go or chris ... does not go." Obviously Alan did go, so we ... existential issues. So if Alan, then Alan goes to the park. ... erased from existence. If Alan does not go to the ...
... of your mind. "If not Alan, then Chris" is what you ... translate that to, "If not Alan going to park, then Chris ... . So, for example:
A = Alan C = Chris P = Going to ... park ( ) = Subscript
... more than one subject. "Alan goes to the park." That ... 's one subject (Alan) matched with one predicate ( ... park). Now I say "Alan and Chris go to the ... we have two subjects (Alan and Chris) yet still the ... s actually two sentences. "Alan goes to the park" and ...
... have a sentence like "Alan and Chris cannot both ... is equivalent to "If Alan goes to the park, ... . Your antecedent is simply "Alan" and your consequent is "go ... things are truth-apt. "Alan" cannot be true or ... certainly ways to symbolize "Alan goes to the park" ...