@nantesorkestar said:
I just can't see any assumptions the argument is making. In my opinion, C might weaken the argument if the insertion occurs at a random spot. Doesn't this contradict that the fragments are in the same location?
@bbank0218 @DByrne07
I had the same setup! I definitely had the same section1 and section 5 LR, but I'm pretty sure I had a different section 3. I think that was the experimental one.
Absolutely! Section1 went somewhat well (RC), I felt pretty good about section 2 ... 'm not mistaken, my third section/second RC was the experimental ... I hope it was! 4th section (LR) didn't go so ...
Very much agree with what's above, I also think drilling and Bring some of the earliest PT LR section is useful. It kinda gives you a window into the LSAT writers first intention with LR and helped me see a bird's eye view of the section.
... that it has taken me 1 calendar year: about 1200 games ... from scratch. Start with PT 2 Game 1. Do it three times ... it cannot go in spot 1. These are the reoccurring inference ... time.
@lllllllll said:
Because McElligott's citrus juices HAVE NOT BEEN LINKED TO ANY BACTERIAL INFECTIONS, can't I assume that they contain less infectious bacteria than M'S apple juice?
No, you can never assume. All we know is that the ...
This is an excellent list that I will be bookmarking. Thank you. PT 29 Section 4 Question 24 is illustrative. A very complex weakening question containing causation.
... ; > I had LR for section1,3,4 and I remember ... relieved. My experimental was definitely section one
>
> ... ; I also had LR for 1,3,4 but I remembered ... a question from 1 that someone who doesn't ...
... will be covering PT 62 which is PT A in the second ... for 2 previously disclosed PT's and 1 undisclosed PT. While not necessary ... does provide a previously undisclosed PT that is estimated to be ... =ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER