... March 10, 7-9pm EST, PT 67
Sunday, March 17 ... , 7-9pm EST, PT 69
Sunday, March ... 24, 7-9pm EST, PT 71
Sunday, March ... 7-9pm EST, PT 85
Sunday, May 19, 7-9pm EST ... , PT 86
Sunday, ...
... starter package). Afterwards, I took PT 37 and was able to ... , or foolproof the games in Pt's 19-35 (I can't ... seem to find the PT book for ... 1-19). Appreciate any advice ...
... June 2, 7-9pm EST, PT 74
Sunday, June ... 9, 7-9pm EST, PT 76
Sunday, June ... 16, 7-9pm EST, PT 79
Sunday, June ... July 7, 7-9pm EST, PT - TBD
Sunday, July ... ( any suggestions?): PT 54 PT56 PT 59
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.
After reading this stimulus, I thought the author was assuming the dire wolves were trapped in the tar pits while hunting and scavenging. Is that correct? I was confused about the use of language in answer choice D; what does most frequently actually mean? ...
This Friday, we got the man, the myth, the legend, Daniel aka @canihazJD himself who's agreed to bestow his INFINITE LSAT wisdom exclusively to 7Sage community members.
I'm trying to identify flaws. is PT56 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
So, I understand that the argument is saying that because incidences of the flu were lower during the 6 months of the public health campaign, that means that the campaign was effective.
I chose C - there were fewer large public gatherings ...