I know (A) is correct since it points out there may be no relation between jury decision and testimony. Yet, I'm still confused about (B). Is it descriptively wrong since the stimulus only says one fact instead of two facts?
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 ...
Despite reviewing JY's explanation (https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-25/), I don't understand why answer choice (C) is incorrect while (D) is correct.
For one thing, how is answer choice (C) different from PT29 ...
So we have this health study that found that people who gained approximately 1 pound per year after the age of 35 tended, on the whole, to live longer than those who maintained the weight they had at 35. However, there have been ...
I chose C. The stimulus talked about two different groups eat dinner at home sharing similar nutrition value etc. J.Y. says that (D) address paradox by suggesting the first group(work outside of home) eat outside more often. But it still confuses me why C ...
The last 3 words of the conclusion states "such as diatoms." Doesn't that only mean that some of the Antarctic algae COULD be diatoms? Or is that stating that diatoms were in fact a large portion of the Antarctic algae? I hesitated on answer choice D ...
/Q-->/D D-->W in the 7sage lesson, the teacher said /Q-->/D and /W-->/D, thus, there's no inference made. However, isn't we also can do it like D-->Q and D-->W, thus, some Q are W?
Hi. Just having trouble distinguishing answer C from D in this question. I think D is wrong only because it is plural. Can someone please confirm? I think it's saying the same thing as the right answer (C) in a different way. Please explain if I am wrong. ...