I do not understand why, "'it is never acceptable to offer experimental treatments to patients who experience no extreme symptoms of the the relevant disease" is translated as no extreme symptoms (NES) -----> not acceptable to offer exp. treatment (/ ...
I have done this passage 3 times and have gotten 4 wrong every time. I was just wondering if anyone else has done this passage and has found the questions to just be too hard. I normally go -3 to -5 but dang I don't even know what happened here...
...
Can someone please confirm that I have this chain correct? I became confused with the "cannot" in the first premise. Now I'm presuming "cannot" is modifying the sufficient clause since this premise includes "unless." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was ...
This question is strange -- the correct answer is not properly inferrable.
Many child psychologists believe that the childrearing practice leads to lower self-esteem in children, which leads to those children having less confidence as adults ...
This guy JY shifts from a correct CBT answer choice to a MBT answer choice in the question straight after. I understand why some of the elements might be fixed in certain positions for the GLQ arrangement on Team 1 in Q23, but wouldn't you have to test all ...
When I was timing myself, this question took me almost 2 minutes because I couldn't choose the right answer choice. I think I was not understanding the first sentence ...
I agree A is a better choice given the premises and conclusion, but am I crazy for thinking that an economic incentive implies that the benefit is at least equal to, possibly ...
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 ...
I chose D because all the other answers weren't strengthening the argument and the answer is A but the reason why I didn't pick it was because it says " that are proportional to the harm they BELIEVE to result from those crimes". We're not talking about ...
My big issue with this question is about why B is the correct answer. It seems to equate "exploiting" with "destroy" and I'm not sure how reasonable of an assumption that is to make. Since this is a logically inferred question, I assumed that the right ...
Any chance someone is willing to help me understand why the correct answer choice for this question is C? I cannot seem to figure out how one gets to that answer. Thank you!
Hi can someone help me with this game i am missing some of the big inferences and i have watched the explanation 4 times .
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-2-section-3-game-2/
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 ...
So I chose A because I thought that answer was the one that was most proven based upon on the stimulus and I thought E was a close second but I didn't choose it because it seems a little far fetched saying that the cleanser will " make relatively greater ...
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. ...
(P.S., I know this is a long and dense post, but there's an opportunity at the bottom for anyone reading this to get paid, so hopefully that's an incentive to read this :P)
Hi guys! I wanted to get some feedback from you smart people on the ...
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 ...