https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-09/
I've spent about 2 hrs dissecting this question and I just DO NOT understand it. At all. I've looked at discussion boards, books, everything. Please, for the love of God, HELP!
I'm really having trouble with this question. Am I supposed to approach it as a sufficient assumption question though it's a flaw question? Thanks in advance!
P1: Surgical procedures differ in one important aspect from medicinal drugs.
P2: This one important aspect is that a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug's ...
Even though this question is old, it has several lessons built into it. I was able to parse this question out mainly because of the lessons on 7Sage. The first lesson I see with this question is the importance of being attuned to the grammar of the LSAT ...
Can someone help me understand the following phrase within the stimulus?
"This willingness is even more revealing than is good-natured acquiescence in having others poke fun at one".
This is killing me! Why can JNOP be a correct answer just because we happened to pick J first? Okay, if J is the necessary then O and N can go in too and also because they are OR groups and so both can be in S okay. But then why can't be ...
I'm thinking that maybe C is wrong because the mergers does no good to the market share, and the newly merged companies still have to gain market share by purchasing competitors. However, D indicates that since some producers have been squeezed out of the ...
Hi there. I'm truly confused about this question even if I have scanned the possible right explanations from other platform.
Link1: https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q5-large-quantities-of-lead-dust-t5368.html
I have been reading through some of the previous posts regarding this question, and they have really helped me understand the stimulus and why it is wrong. Basically, the author gave us the following premise:
Hi, would really appreciate any thoughts on this question. My understanding of the stimulus is as follows:
Support NT --> /chance of elect.
Und E -->/support NT
Conclusion: Und E --> Chance of elect.
Anybody wants to shed some light on the LAWGIC aspect of this question?
Apparently, according to PowerScore explanation, the stimulus is a bi-conditional relationship because of the phrase "**if** it satisfies two **requirements**".
...