I understand why AC (A) is the correct answer because it is the best suited. However, is it really an assumption the argument depends on because if you utilise JY's negation method, you can get this:
I'm struggling to note why the E choice does not also fit the bill. Since it eliminates a potential threat to the argument - and it also would weaken the argument if it were true.
I got the answer right by confidently eliminating all the others.
I am still confused about the correct answer choice. The first sentence in the stimulus implies that more than .5 grams have the capacity to neutralize.. Not .5 grams. ...
I’m sure there might be a discussion somewhere on this platform. Can someone please point me to an explanation of why the answer is b? Answer a and b seem the same to me.
I am really struggling with reading this chain. I was under the understanding that two "some" statements lead to an invalid argument, so I didn't think we could make a Must Be True statement. How do you read the chain to get to the correct AC?
Although I am getting better at locating the conclusion in the stimulus, the answer choices are throwing curve balls and hard punches below the belt. Can someone help me please......?
On this question, while I was able to understand and ...
How would you diagram the highlighted sentence. It has three conditional indicators ("if"- group 1 sufficient, "unless"- group 3 negate/sufficient and "cannot" group 4- negate, necessary)?
In the last sentence of the stimulus, does "eliminate" mean completely removing ALL demeaning work, or only reducing the sum total of demeaning work? The last sentence says the robots will only "substitute one type of demeaning work for another" so is he ...
I chose E and was very confident about it on both timed run and BR. My reasoning was, the first premise is talking about "legislation," and the conclusion is about a "trade agreement." I thought it was super vague whether a trade agreement should be ...
I've been using the negation test as I go through the answer choices. I've been able to pinpoint why E is correct and why most of the other answer choices are wrong, except for answer choice C. I don't understand what I'm missing, ...
I had a total deer in the headlights moment with this question. I just didn’t even know what to think after reading the stimulus aside from why noncompliance would have been ok at the local but not national level and the solution JY has seems to have come ...
I don't get how this is the right answer. I'm aware the color red usually means stop and the color yellow usually means yield but why should I need to assume outside information like that to get this answer correct?
I ran into something that kind of tripped me up and I wanted to hear from someone else (hint, it's the phrase "in order to"). Can I break the argument down as follows? ...
This Friday, we got the man, the myth, the legend, Daniel aka @canihazJD himself who's agreed to bestow his INFINITE LSAT wisdom exclusively to 7Sage community members.
Very interesting question. Chose C like a moron cuz I was thinking hmmm how would irritation in the lungs and pollen has anything to do with death? No way people die to pollen allergy?
AC A is the correct one. The fact that population ...
The explanatory video glosses over this very quickly. Why is it just assumed that H and M must not be connected? Does it have something to do with the HT not-block?
Hi, could someone please help explain what exactly does the stimulus here "for how many of the individuals can it be exactly determined **where his or her team places**" really ask?
I though it asked those individuals whose specific teams ...
After reading the stimulus, I was wondering why the overall number of collisions didn't decline even after using headlights was made mandatory and I thought E explained the discrepancy. If it is true that the jurisdictions that have mandatory headlight ...
Struggling with this one. The negation of E wrecks the argument and is what I picked, but I am having a really difficult time eliminating A. Any thoughts on how to justify getting rid of it? Thanks!
The question itself is rather easy - (D) is pretty clearly something the argument is assuming, and necessarily so. Negating it makes a mockery of the argument.
However, I did spend quite a bit of time on this one, because I've always ...