@DumbHollywoodActor said:
This explanation requires far less assumptions (especially the difficult-to-swallow “The two options give COULD be the ONLY options”) than those previously mentioned.
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. ...
... , 2016 June LSAT BR Group PT 40
Tues Jan ... 5pm June LSAT BR Group PT 74
Sat Feb ... 5pm June LSAT BR Group PT 49
Thurs Feb ... 5pm June LSAT BR Group PT 68
Sat Apr ... 5pm June LSAT BR Group PT69
Thurs May 5, ...
I took PT69 yesterday with 2 hours of sleep and absolutely bombed. Gonna blind review then take 2 more in the 70's and do a retake of PT 81 on the week of.
... is not that different from PT69 or the 60 series. So ... are definitely differences between PT 10 and PT 70 the change has ... identified a weakness during a PT. It's normal for new ...
> @MissChanandler said:
> Yes- and saying that something is "necessary and sufficient" is exactly the same as saying something is "sufficient and necessary"
A certain philosopher on PT69 would like to have a word about this!