This question has me absolutely stumped. It appears that the critic is introducing a paradox (an inferior-rated restaurant is more popular than a superior-rated one) and reconciles it with the fact that the interior one is more convenient. Obvious gap is ...
my understanding is that "when people show signs of having a heart attack, EKG is used", so the "cases in which no heart attack occurred", they probably not use EKG, so it's out of scope, because the conclusion is about " ...
Can someone please be kind enough to explain to me why the answer is (c)? I was able to eliminate only (a) and (b). I thought (c), (d), and (e) were all valid. I think I am missing something here.. Please help! Thank you so much.
I am not 100% on my understanding for why the answer is C. I selected B and the others were obvious to me. Could someone help explain or break it down for me? Thank you!
Chose E, but still not clear why the answer is A. I was turned off from A because "submarine basalt", and could not find this in the passage. Could someone explain answer A? Thank you!
Can anyone explain to me how the answer for this question is (b) and not (e)? I cannot convince myself that (e) is not the right answer. Saying (b) is the right answer seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Someone please help!
Why is the answer to this question, D? The passage says that they sold the product for free, so how are we to know whether this includes shipping and handling? Is B not a more appropriate answer?
This is for JY, if we have another answer choice ‘an activity that is conducive to healthy nation ought to be protected and encouraged by nation’ then, A, also this answer choice can be a right answer or just we are try to pick the bridge between main ...
Hey guys. I’m hoping some of you LSAT masters can help with this question. I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around it for the past few days with no luck. I understand it is a correlation/ causation flaw, but I can’t seem to understand why D is the AC and ...
This question is still confusing me after watching the explanation. I thought the question stem was Pseudo Sufficient Assumption.
I thought the best way to approach this was to try to attack the flaw. As an argument by analogy it just seemed ...
I'm super struggling with this question simply because I feel like the answer makes a big jump. It almost seem like its a sufficient assumption question. I just don't see where the stimulus indicates where the public support in ...
I've been trying to make sense of this question for the longest time but I just can't seem to understand what the difference between answer choice (c) and (e) is.
Hey guys, for this MBT question, my gut instinct told me that the third sentence is a conditional. I interpreted it as if you reflect the cost —> would pollute less. If this is correct, how would I incorporate the second sentence into it, / reflect cost ...
I know it's a bad idea to argue with LSAT answers, but I find it's the best way to improve - I want to really understand exactly why my thinking is wrong. I can't seem to find out an adiqute explination for why D is wrong for this question, would love ...
I want to know why answer E is wrong. In Manhattan Prep. It says "everyday food" is irrelevent to the question. However, couldnt water be part of everyday food? Is this also making assumptions?
The correct answer just explains why TI remains ordinary. But why does that even need an explanation?
I thought the discrepancy is why TI is more popular than M despite TI being ordinary. ...
Can someone explain this to me? This is a pfmr question but the answer looks like a contrapositive based on JY's explanation. For some reason I can't seem to understand why this is flawed and the comments don't have any additional help. Thanks.
I understand why (A) is correct, as well as why the wrong answers are incorrect. That being said, I'm having trouble identifying the type of flaw/assumption that this argument is making.
Is this a study flaw? Is the author assuming that the ...
Hello!
This NA question is causing my blood pressure to rise.
I have trouble accepting E).
Negating E) doesn't destroy the argument. It's okay if medicine DOES reduce stress, as long as it isn't ONLY reducing stress. Maybe it reduces ...