http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-08/
Can anyone please explain why the correct answer is (E)? I am confused with the part in (E) saying: "if they are weaponry..."
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/
I'm having trouble translating the "not until" statement. Until is "negate sufficient" but the "not" cancels the negation from the until rule so then it reads just like an if then. Is ...
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-02/
Could anyone explain why the answer is C- All lawyers are cattle ranchers and not A- Some lawyers are cattle ranchers.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-04/
I got this question right, but not perfectly clear why (D) is correct.
Could you elaborate the answer choice (D) - why is it a clear-cut answer?
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-22/
Hi there, I found the correct answer choice makes sense. But I chose A when I first do this question. I think A also explain the conflict by point out the possibility that: maybe ...
Oxygen.18 is a heavier-than-normal isotope of oxygen. In a rain cloud, water molecules containing oxygen-18 are rarer than water molecules containing normal oxygen. But in rainfall, a higher proportion of all ...
Hi there,
I am so confused about this problem and have no idea about whats it talking about.
What does "This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight" mean and how do we strengthen the opposite of it? ...
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-07/
I was between B and C for this question and was hoping folks could weigh in on why C was wrong. I did listen to JY's explanation but still have some ...
Hi everyone I'm having trouble with this question. I think I sort of understand it but if someone can clarify any details Im missing I'd appreciate it.
Basically the citizen states he will do two things to ensure incumbents aren't re-elected. 1) ...
Aren't there two main ways to weaken an argument? Either by going for the premises (contradicting them) or showing why the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from them? I thought C did the first, but now I am having doubts. The stimulus concludes that ...
@SherryS1 said:
I read this as...a statement (ie the context) is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement (Premise 2) that is taken to be true.