Okay people, this is probably one of the hardest LR questions I've ever done, but also why I like talking about it. It's also why I think learning to think in terms of "lawgic" could sometimes make things more difficult. Allow me to explain.
This question has me absolutely stumped. It appears that the critic is introducing a paradox (an inferior-rated restaurant is more popular than a superior-rated one) and reconciles it with the fact that the interior one is more convenient. Obvious gap is ...
Chose E, but still not clear why the answer is A. I was turned off from A because "submarine basalt", and could not find this in the passage. Could someone explain answer A? Thank you!
The correct answer just explains why TI remains ordinary. But why does that even need an explanation?
I thought the discrepancy is why TI is more popular than M despite TI being ordinary. ...
I flagged this one but on blind review stuck with my answer of B...I can understand why the correct answer is A, but still don't see why B CAN'T be right? Has anyone got their arms around this one?
I chose (E). I had thought that the discrepancy was how is it that a restaurant with worse food could be more popular. Assuming this is the discrepancy, would (E) not justify the conclusion? We are told Traintrack has a better location and this brings in ...
I have two quick questions for y'all!
I'm having troubles understanding why JY translates answer answer choice A—that ends up being the right answer—like this:
MPH ----> LS
...
Hey! I am so lost on this question. "A society that has no laws has no crimes." Isn't "no" negate necessary, so that would become, in lawgic speak, L- -> C? (The no when it goes to negates "no crimes" becomes "crimes" in the positive sense. Then, why ...
I've been staring at this question too long and need someone to help me understand.
**Admin Note: I deleted the Stimulus and the Answer Choices as it is against our [Forum Rules](https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15) to post LSAT ...
So I have no idea what is going on in this question. I tried diagramming but it didn't help much. When the answer choices talk about manuscripts, is it referring to both fiction and non-fiction manuscripts?
I can't understand why the first (and not the last) sentence would be the MC. I note that several others posted comments with the same confusion with that question, it really was a hard question for a Q3!
When I first did this question, I crossed everything off and was left with E. I almost chose it, and then I thought it felt a lot like a trap AC...
The stimulus is telling us that if a resource becomes scarce, new technologies that create the ...
I do not understand why the answer is C (Not having his third meal with peppers) rather than A (not having any meal with peppers. Can someone explain this so I can better understand?
Why would A not be correct for this? Is it not true that a society with laws have crimes (SL -> C), since the stimulus establishes that a society with no laws has no crimes (/SL -> /C). Why would D be a more correct answer? Why does the "some" part ...
I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:
(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors ...
I'm having trouble translating the conclusion of the argument into logical form, perhaps because of the word "solely." The conclusion states that "it is **solely** due to ... peppers that he became ill."
Can someone explain the reasoning of this prompt? I chose A) - wrong asnwer but blind reviewing it, I understand it as being partially agreeable to the to the overall argument.
Doesn’t the right answer [E] confuse necessary for sufficient?! Maria satisfies both of the necessary conditions but that doesn’t make the sufficient condition (being eligible) trigger. If we can't conclude that she's eligible JUST from satisfying the two ...
I am not understanding JY’s (or any other online) explanation as to why the answer is A. I’m not understanding how he gets from “If important AND well written then published therefore If important then published.”