I'm trying to identify flaws. is PT 56 S3 Q10 an equivocation flaw; can you use more than a word but a concept in this type of flaw?
Is PT 52 S3 Q4 a false appeal flaw?
Is PT 54 S4 Q16 an implication flaw ?
thanks
We want an answer that contradicts the stimulus, not one that is irrelevant. The stimulus essentially states that if you’re restricting, then you preventing negative effects. TO contradict that,we negate it: Restricting AND not preventing negative effects. ...
@CrushLSAT said:
question 19 (which asks for a complete and accurate list of doctors at Souderton) be E (N and P)? Why can't the ~N --> J pair be treated the same as ~O --> J? If we only have N and P, aren't we still good since we have at ...
@"steve-10" said:
The correct answer to Q1, the typical "acceptable configuration" question, implies T — W (where "—" is the usual notation indicating relative order).
Well, it does imply that T -- W is a possibility. T -- W ...
@goingfor99th PT 33 S3 Q18 AC, E. It could be wrong for other reasons. But in the LSAT TRAINER he says that saying what we ought to do is a different conclusion
Hey! Just browsing LR forum posts and saw no one responded to this. I wrote an explanation here: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/26042/pt-1-s3-q18-please-help