Hey, guys. Why is there talk of three M here when the rules say exactly two M? JY mentions three M and others also mentioned in the comments section. What am I missing here? Three M was never an option for me becatse of that rule.
... on a schedule of 1 PT a day, drilling each game ... . **Day 1**: PT1 **Day 2**: PT 1&2 **Day 3 ... &5&1 **Day 7**: PT7&6&3& ... question from the day 1 PT I will attempt it until ... , I have been doing 1 PT per day and simply attempting ...
... drilling question types from PT7-25 untimed and also ... shifted my focus toward taking PT sections timed, and will ... . On my recent timed PT (sections were timed but ... that I take the PT 43 fully timed tomorrow. ... onto a new fully timed PT exam?
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 ...
Why is "only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required" the answer here? I literally can't bend my mind to figure out why that changes anything after the headlight law went into effect and the resulting lack of collision ...
I know for some people this question may have been easy, but I was really stumped between B and E because of the last sentence in the stimulus. I saw the last sentence as saying that the trait that determined why the trees had different ...
Is the reasoning flaw in the stimulus that it concludes what makes something not censorship from the sufficient condition for censorship?
If A or B, then Censorship exists.
From this, we cannot conclude that censorship does not exist.
I was watching the explanation for the in/out game referring to a group of people who can only be hired if they are interviewed for a position. In the explanation for the last question in the set, it mentions that the problem states at ...
Hi all - I'd really appreciate your help on understanding the argument in this question.
I get the gap in this question is that just because first doctrine states that "all historical events must be explained in economic factors" doesn't ...
Can someone help explain this question to me? It's the first LR question I haven't been able to understand, even after blind review and review. I chose answer choice B.
I was stuck between B and C, and ultimately ended up going with C. I immediately crossed out D because I didn't think it was relevant. Would really appreciate someone's insight.
Hi! I don't really understand why B is wrong even after reading numerous explanations. If areas subject to **more fires** (which is true when the level of rainfall drops below normal for an extended period of time like in a drought) tend to be **less ...