The last 3 words of the conclusion states "such as diatoms." Doesn't that only mean that some of the Antarctic algae COULD be diatoms? Or is that stating that diatoms were in fact a large portion of the Antarctic algae? I hesitated on answer choice D ...
I am having difficulty seeing why the correct answer in this question is D. The argument shows that two methods of investigation yielded different results. The conclusion then states that there is no need to look further for an explanation of the ...
I can't see why (E) is wrong. Could anyone explain why (D) is right?? Appreciate in advance
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-04/
Hi!
I was down to answers C and E and wasn't sure why E would be a better choice than C and vice versa.
I did watch JY's video and still have trouble figuring this out.
C- I thought this was supported by line 2-4. Wouldn't " ...
Couldn't we make the inference that only R and Z can be in slot 1? I was going to split the board on those but realized I didn't have enough info. I quickly eliminated A on question 1 without second thought because I scanned to eliminate any AC that didn't ...
Hey, guys. Has anyone noticed any funky games such as this one in recent PT? JY said don't worry but there seems to be a trend of the older style games coming back. How would I ever know to draw a freaking star?!! I'm sure it could be solved other ways. I ...
So I got this one wrong and picked C when A is the correct AC. It's just not clicking for me how this is correct. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
PT 77, Section 2, #18 Answer Choices C and D. Does "fails to exclude" mean the same thing more or less as "fails to consider"?
I thought "fails to exclude" was incorrect because the author doesn't need to exclude it, he just failed to consider it. ...
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 ...