So I chose D because I thought that the conclusion of the stimulus was that the US is behind in the sense that they should make these safety regulations a requirement not that they aren't actually safe because in the stimulus it says that they are all ...
Hey everyone,
So question 24 in section 2 of Prep Test 61.
This question I've been trying to grapple with for 3 days (seriously). I understand how conditionals work, but this question just doesn't work for me no matter how many times ...
Can anyone clarify why E is correct?
I chose E indirectly after eliminating other four answer choices.
.
Explanation for other answers:
[DIAGRAM]
Artist --most-> Hold less insightful political views than well educated ...
Is C right because its requires you to assume that since the number of large/med tornadoes reported has stayed the same, then the number of small tornadoes reported has increased? I'm not sure how one could see this answer strengthening the argument ...
I can infer that Clarifssa definitely disagrees with D, but how can we know what Myungsook thinks doing natural science successfully requires? From the stimulus, I cannot infer ...
Alright, I'm not sure if I should be worried about this question too much as I hope (and have heard) that the newer tests are much more logically rigorous. Anyway, hear me out on this one...
This was a very weird author's-attitude question. Even when I look at the correct line (line 24), I still don't fully understand how the answer here is B. (I thought the answer was A because of how the author ...
Gosh, this question was hard.
Can anyone explain why B is not a weakener?
I thought B weakened because, if most people in the painting did resemble real people from history, then if we follow the author's logic, this would mean that any of ...
Would someone be able to help me out with this one? I didn't trust the correct AC from the beginning because I thought it was too much of a sufficient assumption. I know something can be both sufficient and necessary but this question just really got me. < ...
I posted this under the Q-specific help vid, but the discussion forum here seems to get more attention sometimes, so double-posting. Promise to add helpful responses I get to my original discussion for our future LSAT progeny :3< ...
First of all, the conclusion. There are no conclusion indicators and I was confused between 2 statements to select for the conclusion. Secondly, answer choice (A) and (C), aren't they basically both saying the same ...
I think I understand what the premises are saying, but I don't understand where the author of this stimulus even got his conclusion. If we have luggages that don't contain explosives and only one percent give false positives (alarm goes off even though ...
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 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?
Can you help me break down this question? My understanding of the argument is: the two sub-conclusions are inconsistent with each other (outside principles vs constitution only), therefore the first sentence is not true. I selected answer choice E because ...
why is it not required to block out that Mayor Drabble could repay her debt to Lee immediately in some other way? Why is the temporal aspect more important by the stimulus? Was stuck between A and E. #help