@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 ...
I see that the discussion forum title says that this is for PT48, but the heading right above the GoToMeeting link says it's PT46 (Saturday, Feb 20th at 8PM ET: PT46). To be clear, this is for 48, right?
@nantesorkestar said:
I just can't see any assumptions the argument is making. In my opinion, C might weaken the argument if the insertion occurs at a random spot. Doesn't this contradict that the fragments are in the same location?
I have my list of LSAT vocabulary, but if I post it here, everyone would be like, "omg....you should go back to high school....you shouldn't be taking the LSAT...."