Can someone help me understand the following phrase within the stimulus?
"This willingness is even more revealing than is good-natured acquiescence in having others poke fun at one".
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-09/
I've spent about 2 hrs dissecting this question and I just DO NOT understand it. At all. I've looked at discussion boards, books, everything. Please, for the love of God, HELP!
I'm really having trouble with this question. Am I supposed to approach it as a sufficient assumption question though it's a flaw question? Thanks in advance!
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 ...
This is killing me! Why can JNOP be a correct answer just because we happened to pick J first? Okay, if J is the necessary then O and N can go in too and also because they are OR groups and so both can be in S okay. But then why can't be ...
I'm thinking that maybe C is wrong because the mergers does no good to the market share, and the newly merged companies still have to gain market share by purchasing competitors. However, D indicates that since some producers have been squeezed out of the ...
Answer choice C: "it is compatible either with accepting the conclusion or denying it"
I have seen this answer choice in other AP questions and want to make sure I understand what it means. From my understanding, this answer choice is an ...
I have been reading through some of the previous posts regarding this question, and they have really helped me understand the stimulus and why it is wrong. Basically, the author gave us the following premise:
I would love to Blind Review with someone - anyone! I am starting off my LR journey and it could be great to bounce ideas off with someone else. My LR scores are not very consistent yet and can range from timed -9/-5 and BR -5/-2. I am trying to make my ...
Hi, would really appreciate any thoughts on this question. My understanding of the stimulus is as follows:
Support NT --> /chance of elect.
Und E -->/support NT
Conclusion: Und E --> Chance of elect.
Can someone please explain how D is correct? because when I read it, it did not seem like it would strengthen the argument, since its says consumers added smaller quantiles of coconut oil as oppose to whole milk.
Anybody wants to shed some light on the LAWGIC aspect of this question?
Apparently, according to PowerScore explanation, the stimulus is a bi-conditional relationship because of the phrase "**if** it satisfies two **requirements**".
...