I got this wrong because while I did see the author was appealing to authority, I thought it was reasonable to assume that if the author says what an authority figure says, then it can be said that the author would say that too.
I don't get the explanation for why A is right. All we know is that do produce a good meal you can't have bad food. That would seem to imply that you could have a good meal with mediocre food. So how can you then take the the next conditional relationship ...
1. Ticks drop off host when fed to capacity, and not before.
2. Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice must drop off between noon and sunset.
3. White-footed mice ...
Hello, could anyone explain to me why the answer is B and not A. Isn't the argument centred around reduction in capital gains tax and how they would lead to increase in deficit?
I need some help with this question. I got the right answer but in Blind Review I changed the answer to a wrong choice. The right answer is D. I understand why that is right. The problem I have is trying to determine why A is wrong. Is it just that A ...
I just recently solved the question referenced above, a MBT question with heavy conditional reasoning. I understand why TCR is what it is, but it took me WAY too long to solve this question. Even in hindsight/BR, I don't know ...
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, can someone explain why answer choice e isnt a match? I'm still not 100% sure after BRing and watching the explination vid.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-21/
I could use some help with this necessary assumption question. I definitely see why C is a necessary assumption, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why E is not also an equally necessary assumption. I have yet to find an ...
So I chose answer choice A because author Q simply states, " ought to have been effective, but he has not been" the author is just saying that he's been ineffective but doesn't offer up any evidence as to why he is ineffective. Can someone explain to me ...
I'm pretty confused about this question. Could anyone speak more on why (C) is incorrect? I chose it because I thought it was blocking out an alternative cause to the cited change in attitude: philosophers spreading their ...
Could anyone shed some light as to the issues with (D)? I didn't select it because I had an eerie feeling about it, but even as I read over it now I can't seem to put my finger on why it's incorrect. The more I read (D), the ...
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 ...
Hey everyone! Having a bit of difficulty with this passage. It's from the first RC problem set in the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could add to JY's explanation for #26 and explain how (E) is supported? I chose (A), but I felt uneasy about ...
Hey, yall! Would you say that AC B equals ambiguity? Sometimes I get equivocation and ambiguity mixed up but I eliminated equivocation here because "tax" isn't used differently throughout the passages. B basically says the author extended the meaning of ...
Sharing this because while eliminating AC E, I was forced to question the difference between causation and sufficiency as well as the danger of using Lawgic as shorthand when you're not actually dealing with conditional statements.