Question: what can we conclude "virtually" to mean in this context? Can I conclude that there is at least one proposal that the so-called environmental group did not raise objections to? What is the opposite in LSAT world to "virtually?"
Can someone that knows about games help me do this one in a stacked way? JY explains it in a linear way which is not how it is presented and I am confused on how to do it. Thank you.
**Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format PT#.S#.Q ...
The hotel being at 100% capacity seems to be the right answer to me as if the hotel is at 100% capacity no amount of decorations can better this number. Upgrading the decor, and thereby price, would have an ambiguous impact ...
The question gives you an initial claim as well as a principle to go with it. The stem asks for you to pick an AC that could be appropriately used as a premise for an argument that uses the principle in the stimulus. I see this as more of a pseudo- ...
I have been going to different forums to understand this question and i'm still having trouble with it. Idk why C is wrong. Wrong timed and in BR. Thanks!
**Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description ...
First of all, the conclusion. There are no conclusion indicators and I was confused between 2 statements to select for the conclusion. Secondly, answer choice (A) and (C), aren't they basically both saying the same ...
I'm having a little trouble understanding why the answer to this question is C). If the author explicitly states at the end of the passage that, "the survey data do not establish that financial problems are the major problem in contemporary marriages," how ...
Can someone explain to me why the answer isn't D?
My thinking was that D has to be assumed because if helmet wouldn't prevent the fatality then there would be no point in requiring the helmet since they would just be dead anyway? Morbid thinking ...
I can understand how ACs A-D are incorrect. I am truly struggling to see how E is correct.
My contention here is that even if a greater proportion of crimes are reported in recent years, those independent surveys would still include all of ...
So this particular question has about 8 years worth of comments and about as much time's worth of confusion regarding why D weakens the argument because it seems to be attacking a premise, namely the one stating that these painters have to eat sea animals ...
I think I understand what the premises are saying, but I don't understand where the author of this stimulus even got his conclusion. If we have luggages that don't contain explosives and only one percent give false positives (alarm goes off even though ...
Why would the program care about if they have "serious problems" when they said they needed to focus on building competence just to stay on air. B sounds too vague to me
I understand why AC (A) is the correct answer because it is the best suited. However, is it really an assumption the argument depends on because if you utilise JY's negation method, you can get this:
I'm struggling to note why the E choice does not also fit the bill. Since it eliminates a potential threat to the argument - and it also would weaken the argument if it were true.
I got the answer right by confidently eliminating all the others.
I am still confused about the correct answer choice. The first sentence in the stimulus implies that more than .5 grams have the capacity to neutralize.. Not .5 grams. ...
I’m sure there might be a discussion somewhere on this platform. Can someone please point me to an explanation of why the answer is b? Answer a and b seem the same to me.
I am really struggling with reading this chain. I was under the understanding that two "some" statements lead to an invalid argument, so I didn't think we could make a Must Be True statement. How do you read the chain to get to the correct AC?
Although I am getting better at locating the conclusion in the stimulus, the answer choices are throwing curve balls and hard punches below the belt. Can someone help me please......?
On this question, while I was able to understand and ...
How would you diagram the highlighted sentence. It has three conditional indicators ("if"- group 1 sufficient, "unless"- group 3 negate/sufficient and "cannot" group 4- negate, necessary)?
In the last sentence of the stimulus, does "eliminate" mean completely removing ALL demeaning work, or only reducing the sum total of demeaning work? The last sentence says the robots will only "substitute one type of demeaning work for another" so is he ...
I chose E and was very confident about it on both timed run and BR. My reasoning was, the first premise is talking about "legislation," and the conclusion is about a "trade agreement." I thought it was super vague whether a trade agreement should be ...
I've been using the negation test as I go through the answer choices. I've been able to pinpoint why E is correct and why most of the other answer choices are wrong, except for answer choice C. I don't understand what I'm missing, ...
I had a total deer in the headlights moment with this question. I just didn’t even know what to think after reading the stimulus aside from why noncompliance would have been ok at the local but not national level and the solution JY has seems to have come ...