Wow,
I feel like I'm posting one of these everyday. So this question has to do with a Necessary Assumption question--an old one. I've realized in the past hour or so of review that I've been doing, that I fall pretty consistently for one type of ...
Alright, I'm not sure if I should be worried about this question too much as I hope (and have heard) that the newer tests are much more logically rigorous. Anyway, hear me out on this one...
Any fruit that is infected is also rotten. No fruit that was inspected is infected. Therefore, any fruit that was inspected is safe to eat.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
I am confused about the word “generally” in the conclusion.
**To Recap The argument form in Lawgic:**
**P1**: Emotional Tendencies /(Changed)
**Required Premise**: Emotional Tendencies /(Changed)-> Generally /(Able to choose ...
Can I infer some are -P from the statement that most people are P? I think saying most people are mortal does not mean some people are immortal, but the correct AC of this question seems to suggest the otherwise. Is this a bad LR question?
I don't understand how executives from other companies setting salaries higher could have an impact on the salaries of executives from other companies?
I need help with trying to answer the questions that ask something along the lines of "Which of following could substitute the condition (insert rule here)"? I don't know how to approach these at all.
I posted this under the Q-specific help vid, but the discussion forum here seems to get more attention sometimes, so double-posting. Promise to add helpful responses I get to my original discussion for our future LSAT progeny :3< ...
How would you diagram the highlighted sentence. It has three conditional indicators ("if"- group 1 sufficient, "unless"- group 3 negate/sufficient and "cannot" group 4- negate, necessary)?
The question itself is rather easy - (D) is pretty clearly something the argument is assuming, and necessarily so. Negating it makes a mockery of the argument.
However, I did spend quite a bit of time on this one, because I've always ...