http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-07/
This question asks us to identify a flaw.
Attorney: I ask you to find Mr.Smith guilty of assaulting Mr.Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitness to the crime but Mr.Smith ...
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-21/
Between a/c B and C. Firstly I have issues with how the Conclusion is about labor savng technology tends to undermine values--- being interpreted as a conditional statement. We do ...
I'm having trouble with the following question from Superprep, A:
L: People's intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good. Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive ...
This question went completely over my head and I still don't understand why the correct answer is (C) for all the tea in China. If someone could please explain this question it would be greatly appreciated!
The answer choices really messed with me because I was between c and d. C plays with the negatives a lot. C says: NONE of the shows that Wilke and Wilke produced last year that ...
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 ...
Hi. I'm not sure how to translate "those in search of jobs **should** move to a city with high-tech businesses" into lawgic. I thought the word "should" might be a necessary condition, but JY didn't put an arrow to connect JOBS and HIGH TECH. Whereas in ...
I am so confused by the video explanation on this one. At 1:27 the video says that an answer choice is "totally compatible to the statement above because they have nothing to do with each other"
This one tripped me up quite a bit. I need a better explanation than J.Y. gave in the video. In a flaw question, are we to assume all the premise are true? In this question it says;
"...to play a card game devised to test perception and ...
Would anyone be willing to walk me through this one? I just can't step back enough to see it clearly and feel certain I understand (and I don't have access to the explanation video). Thank you!
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why the passage supports D more strongly than E. I ended up going with D on the test, but didn't feel like I had an articulable justification for why it was a better choice. ...
I just can't even understand what this question is saying, let alone understand the logic underneath it. Can someone shed some light as to what makes this stimulus so hard to understand?
If someone can really break this down that would be ...
Can someone explain to me why the answer is A? I was able to get the right answer but only through process of elimination. I don't actually understand what A is saying...
This question is a “similar reasoning question”. It says “ the higher the altitude, the thinner the air. Since Mexico City’s altitude is higher than that of Panama City, the air must be thinner in Mexico City than in Panama City.” I have looked at the ...
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'm having a really difficult time eliminating answer choice E) in this one. I I chose this during timed, switched to the credited response C) during BR. C) is stated in an unambiguous fashion in paragraph 4. I understand why the author would agree with ...
Please help if you can. The question is filled with technical terms, which I know that I should just replace it. But then, the answer choices put in more of those terms and I literally felt like my brain just had blown up after ...