Hi I was just hoping someone could help me sort out the conditional logic in this stimulus. I feel like there's a gap in my understanding of the first sentence of the stimulus.
The first statement is about archaic spellings being preserved ...
S: An owner of a work of art have the ethical right to destroy that artwork if (1) they find it morally/visually distasteful or (2) caring for it becomes inconvenient. This right to ...
I got this one right almost instinctively (I didn't map this out), but I have a question about the phrase "**_can best be explained if_**" in the second sentence of the ...
Im having a little trouble understanding why answer choice D is correct. I understood the flaw that an absence of proof for something to be false, does not make it true the minute i read it.
However the wording in Answer choice D is confusing me. ...
I came across a puzzling question while I was answering this reading comprehension question. Just to be clear, my question is more a question on formal logic than that of reading comprehension. I was wondering if the following two ...
I'm a little confused about why the video explanation shows the first sentence as PISM --most--> /DOR. I thought that the "without" would negate the first part of the sentence and it would look like /PISM --most--> DOR. If someone could explain ...
I find myself struggling with Disagree questions. It's difficult to keep the moving parts together and find the overlap. Especially when there are embedded clauses which obfuscate the domain of discourse or in particularly loooong questions such as this ...
I got this question right during the PT by POE (A-B reverses necessary and sufficient terms, ACD all use most-statements) but in BR I really had to labor over the logic. It ...