Hey, yall! Would you say that AC B equals ambiguity? Sometimes I get equivocation and ambiguity mixed up but I eliminated equivocation here because "tax" isn't used differently throughout the passages. B basically says the author extended the meaning of ...
So I didn't do so well on this game because I played the children multiple times because it didn't say that they had to be played exactly once, so should we assume that they need to be played at least once unless stated otherwise? Thank you!!!
Flaw Question-- calling all folks who are a beast at LR:) HELP?
I understand that the answer is C but I want to make sure that I'm breaking down the argument correctly:
*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some ...
... goldfinch game from PT14, the lizard game from PT 27, the CD ... , the fruit stand game from PT 36 (conditional logic and chaining ... bus game from PT 36, dinosaur game from PT 57, the stained ... glass game from PT 62, work-piece game from ...
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 ...
Sample of recent PT/BR scores: 170/178, 167 ... % of the time. On a PT I'll usually do -5 ... , now having done everything from PT14 up at least once with ... . I'm exploring video of PT takes, but haven't settled ...
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?