For this particular question, I'm not really sure why answer choice B is correct over answer choice C. In the LSAT, do motives usually apply to reasons relating to self-interest, such as profit-motive? Additionally, aren't presuppositions or assumptions ...
For this particular problem, I wasn't able to clearly articulate why answer choice C was incorrect. I interpreted the conclusion to be a causal one, specifically one that claims that the author's political party is responsible for the decrease in ...
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!
I was stuck on this question for a long time, trying to figure out what is going on. In the end, I think I got my head around it. Can someone check my work please?
This was a difficult question about dinosaurs, fossil evidence and their argued relationship with reptiles. Many users chose AC D) but E) is correct. I can't seen to figure out what the "two present-day" phenomena are, can anyone help a gal out? THANK YOU ...
This question took me a lot of time but i still dont get why A is the answer because in A arent we affirming the consequent which is a conditional logic error ( if x then y - all poor then honest ; if y then x - all honest if poor )???
I understand the conclusion is saying that the airlines should remove seats that impede the exit because many fatalities are due to the cabin design of the seats. Here is my issue, many = some.. so when I look at it this way maybe 1 collision is like this ...
Okay so I can see why E could be the correct answer. But I just wasn't sure whether there was both government inaction (maybe the government is just but they are acting) and he did everything in good faith.
It's unclear to me why D assists in weakening the argument? Isn't the argument that efforts have not worked to have people recycle plastics? If so, how does it weaken the authors argument that recycling methods have improved for non-plastics? Very confused ...
Is the idea that this is a one premise argument where answer choice (A) just contraposes to the desired conclusion? That is, are we to assume that "All rich farmers are dishonest" and "Every honest farmer is poor" are logically equivalent, and that "Every ...
Could someone explain their thought process in getting the correct answer? I debated between A and B and eventually settled for B because I thought the very last line is the Conclusion. #help