Hey guys! So two of us were discussing this question on the BR call last night. I chose D, which is the correct answer, but I want confirmation for why E is wrong.
The question asks for a characteristic of "games that are intentionally ...
The stimulus states that some vitamin-fortified foods have 100% recommend daily intake of vitamin A and D. We also know from the stimulus that some (many) people overestimate the serving size of vitamin- ...
... : I front-loaded the PT 70s for Fridays because I ... ll still have PT 77 available to PT in May. Trust ...
For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as ... m June LSAT BR Group PT71
Tues Mar 8, ... 5pm June LSAT BR Group PT71
Thurs May 12, ...
... still have PT 76 and PT 77 available to PT in ... br />
For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as ... 5pm - 8pm FEB Group BR PT71
Sat Nov 7, 2015 ... 5pm - 8pm FEB Group BR PT 56
Thu Nov 26 ... 5pm - 8pm FEB Group BR PT71
Mon Jan 18, ...
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-3-question-15/
Hey, could anyone please help me understand how answer choice B does not weaken the argument? if there were more people with more than 6 months treatment responding then the ...
... />
I recently retook the PT71, which I originally took on ... Comprehension section of this particular pt seemed just as hard as ... ? Can I still use this PT as a measure that my ...
I'm taking the test next June. The last 10 Actual packet ended at PT71. This means that the next packet will be 72-81, with PT 81 being the February 2016 test. Will LSAC release 72-81 in a new 10 Actual packet before June 2016? Thanks.
This was obviously a tough question, and after hours of tearing out my hair, I understand where the flaw is and why answer choice E is correct. Yet, there is still one component I am confused about.
Can someone please confirm that I have this chain correct? I became confused with the "cannot" in the first premise. Now I'm presuming "cannot" is modifying the sufficient clause since this premise includes "unless." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was ...
I thought that this was an example of a part to whole fallacy. The author concludes that the decrease in revenue is exaggerated because part (parts and service companies) of the industry have succeeded even after admitting that manufacturers' share of the ...