This was obviously a tough question, and after hours of tearing out my hair, I understand where the flaw is and why answer choice E is correct. Yet, there is still one component I am confused about.
I have a question on answer choice C.
I understand the flaw of the survey: how it fails to distinguish the residents who dropped out in its own schools and those who dropped out of schools from somewhere else. But, after ...
I just took Preptest 2, Section 1 twice (once timed, once untimed) and BOTH TIMES got my butt kicked...even going through the correct answers now, I'm like "What?? How on earth is that correct?" Has anyone else taken this section ...
Hi!
I was down to answers C and E and wasn't sure why E would be a better choice than C and vice versa.
I did watch JY's video and still have trouble figuring this out.
C- I thought this was supported by line 2-4. Wouldn't " ...
Can someone please confirm that I have this chain correct? I became confused with the "cannot" in the first premise. Now I'm presuming "cannot" is modifying the sufficient clause since this premise includes "unless." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was ...
When I first began my LSAT studying journey, I found flaw questions to be very straight forward. They have unfortunately turned into a question where I often find myself second guessing on my AC ...
Can someone explain to me this stimulus? It says "Which one of the following could be an accurate and complete list of the students who review only _Sunset_?" Usually, the "complete and accurate" stimuli want a list of all the items across all possible ...
The answer for this question is E. I don't think any of the answers really have a logic structure that parallels to that of the stimulus. For the stimulus I got:
Can someone explain why B is correct for this question? I find this question confusing, mostly because the way the prompt asks for a principle that if established will prove both sides of the argument correct.
Could someone help me shed some light on why the correct answer is correct? The passage refers to "such protection", as protection for the sellers (to not have to sell to a buyer who bids extremely low), but the correct answer (E), doesn't seem to be ...
I thought that this was an example of a part to whole fallacy. The author concludes that the decrease in revenue is exaggerated because part (parts and service companies) of the industry have succeeded even after admitting that manufacturers' share of the ...
I chose C because it is weakening the argument which is saying that people are more concerned about their finances than politics and C says that they are JUST AS concerned about their finances and politics thus weakening the argument and I thought E was ...
Im having trouble understanding why answer choice E is correct. I chose answer choice D because the conclusion has to do with the experts being useless because they offered contradictory information. I thought that when were looking at reasoning method ...
Hi could someone help me out with the diagramming on this one? I found it absolutely confounding and I'm usually pretty decent at conditional phrasing.
So what I took away from this after looking at this thoroughly was that the original ...
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 ...