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) ...
I am currently drilling Main Point questions and I have come across question #3 from PT9 Section 2 and I am slightly confused. I chose "this concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even- ...
Does anyone have tips on how to tackle must be true questions when there is percentages/numbers involve because I'm having a hard time understanding why D is right
For No. 3, I'm a bit lost on the wording of what the question is asking for. Am I supposed to look for the answer that gives the other pieces no other ...
Hi, Thank you for your time. Please take a look at the following stimulus:
> All students at Pitcombe College were asked to label themselves conservative, liberal, or middle-of-the-road politically. Of the students, 25 percent labelled ...
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 ...
Why is it that for MBT questions we do not try all scenarios before picking an AC? For example, question 3 reads, “If K sits directly between L & P, then M must sit between..” for this in the live commentary, she writes PKL but doesn’t try for LKP. I ...
Is A the right answer because it's refuting the claim that polls influence voter decisions and hence the need for them to be banned one week prior to the election? I can see why it's A from process of elimination, but it didn't seem too appealing as an ...
Weakening Question
I identified 3 premises here:
1. Subconclusion: Poll results can influence decisions and may distort outcomes. SubPremise: Poll results may not be as reliable as public thinks.
2. Publishing polls immediately before ...
... to be two variations: S1-Q3 or S2-Q3). We then couple this ... with rule #1 and S2-Q3 is no longer a valid ... an S-Q arrangement: S1-Q3. It just so happens that ... a valid world in which Q3 and Q-S. Given the ...
@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.