I'm looking at PT44-S2-Q20 and the explanation for why A) and D) are wrong raised a question for me. In the explanation, it sounds to me that just because A causes B, A can happen sometimes without B happening.
Would "purely", "merely", and "solely" function the same way "only" functions in the conditional logic or reasoning with "only" being necessary condition indicator?
I'm confused to when to diagram. some inference Q are obvious with logical indicators. Some are hidden or have causation in the argument and qualifiers (maybe, could etc). When do you diagram? what's the general rule?
So where is the key piece of evidence that I should really focus on in this question? The conditional is throwing me off.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-10/
... />
When writing out the conditional logic for the reporter, I ... on the sufficient and necessary conditional. If not is on both ... sides of the conditional how do you use lawgic ...