@jac376 said:
Flaw: The correlation of Ra, C, and (C --> Rh) does not mean there is a causation from C to Ra. The answer which strengthens this argument will show that (Rh --> Ra) (C causes Ra because it causes Rh which causes Ra) or directly ...
We want an answer that contradicts the stimulus, not one that is irrelevant. The stimulus essentially states that if you’re restricting, then you preventing negative effects. TO contradict that,we negate it: Restricting AND not preventing negative effects. ...
[the below does not apply to anyone for whom English is a second language]
I've literally never done any "outside reading" for the LSAT. Instead I watch quality television programming (during the, you know, 6 hours of free time I have each ...
You keep asking these questions yet you have ultimate+ and have the explanation to this question even though you keep pretending it is from the non-existent 5th section.
Sorry I just saw the updated calendar and it shows PT36 Thur. I'm going to try but I work late on Thur so it's doubtful...but I'll get on one of these.
Interesting. You're positive the NA isn't actually necessary? I'm curious about these examples. I didn't look closely at it, but PT 71.S1.Q11 seems to be about pollution. Is that the right reference? PT means PrepTest, right?
You can find JY doing LR in PT69 S1+S4, and PT71 S1+S3. And Jon also had an epic timed LR section video, which took him only 19 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4vY0KpviJw&index=6&list=LLaknkMoRl59wmjfBX67-nFg