Can anyone explain why S3Q24 on PT 93 is B and not C? I know C has the conclusion less clearly delineated but other than that it seems to match up slightly better.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-24/
Answer is E. What does this even mean? :O
E) "presumes,without providing justification, that 18 century European aesthetics is as encompassing as an aesthetic theory can be"
Help! I can't wrap my head around this one AT ALL. I'm not even sure what the conclusion is.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-24/
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-24/
This question is beyond sucky. Did anyone else have any problems with determining the right answer for this question? Thanks.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-3-question-24/
This sufficient assumption question really has me thrown. I've read the Manhattan explanations on this, but I'm still having a hard time with understanding the whole question. ...
This is a necessary assumption question. I correctly identified what is the premise ( aesthic value --> possible for at least two readers to agree on the interpretation) and the conclusion ( objective evaluation of a poem is possible -> popular ...
Hi,
I've looked at lot of explanations (I have starter so I don't have access to 7Sage explanation) and I'm still not able to understand this one. I figured out the conditionals during the test, but I still don't fully understand how to approach/ ...
I am not sure why answer choice D in question 68 section 3 of PT 68 is incorrect. Here is an explanation for why I think D can be considered the correct answer.
I made 3 assumptions about parallel reasoning questions which I would like to ...
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.
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 ...
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 ...
Hi everyone!
Can someone please help me with this question. I can't understand why C is wrong at all. I got it down to A and C and ended up picking C.
cant C be correct because if drinking one glass doesn't cause deficiency in vitamin D, ...
Really need some help here. I chose D and felt pretty strong about it and it turns out its B. I usually have an inkling on this but I don't see it at all. Thought it was statistical/actual issue.
So this question is easy enough when I take a moment to write out the logic. Even so, I'd like some advice on how to attempt this without enough time to parse out and write down the logic of each answer choice until I get to the right one. Unless the rule ...
Okay so for this question I got it right but would have taken way less time if I understood something. I've been doing logic for a while but this one got me a little tripped.
I'm confused as to why we ruled out spent fuel rods on the basis that they never contain "significant" quantities of tellurium isotopes? In the first sentence of the stimulus, it just states that they found "radioactive isotopes of iodine, tellurium, and ...