I diagrammed it and got K-->LS,O----> H Then for conclusion K--->H when doing all this how do I get to D? I ended up picking E because I knew it couldnt be D (terrible logic i know)
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-2- ...
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-23/
So in JY's explanation the stimulus represents invalid argument form 4. But I'm having trouble seeing this. Had the second sentence read "most BRICK houses on river street with front ...
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 ...
I'm not sure why 1) negating morally right to mean morally wrong is incorrect and 2) negating right to mean wrong is incorrect. Please explain!
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-23
I have problems for this question.
The question stem mentions the preference in Passage A:
Preference for coherence connecting variety, not too simple (pure tone) = not interesting; not too complex = bad
...
I got it right. But I don't know why J.Y said we can can make "some" statement by contrapositive. The relationship is about "all" statement.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-23/
Any idea?
So I got this one wrong and picked C when A is the correct AC. It's just not clicking for me how this is correct. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Hey everyone! Having a bit of difficulty with this passage. It's from the first RC problem set in the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could add to JY's explanation for #26 and explain how (E) is supported? I chose (A), but I felt uneasy about ...
The whole argument is about SSH mechanism.But I think there is a huge mistake.All the author wants to prove is that the SSH is an independent factor affecting bird's status.And he did it.The question is that if a juvenile male bird with higher SSH ...
This question took me a lot of time but i still dont get why A is the answer because in A arent we affirming the consequent which is a conditional logic error ( if x then y - all poor then honest ; if y then x - all honest if poor )???
Can someone explain their reasoning for the right answer? I have a general intuition as to why this is correct, but am having a difficult time articulating it to myself. Thanks so much! #HELP
For this question, I conceived the flaw to be"from correlation to causation, and thus to prescriptive assertion". I was threw off by E at my first sight for its first premise "most people who exercise regularly are able to handle stress."
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, ...