A ---> B --SOME--> C; therefore A ----> C, is that a valid argument?
I know A ---Some--> C is an invalid argument, but I am unsure about the not some situation.
... correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I ... 'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean ... would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood ... give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly ...
I chose C - there were fewer large public ... But the explanation says that C is wrong because it ... the campaign more than C does because food born ... mean, I know that C doesn't necessarily mean people ... is A more correct than C?
I swear I remember learning in one of the lessons that the lawgic if A then B and C can be rewritten as if A and B then C and vise versa but I can't find that lesson anywhere and am not sure if I just made that rule up in my head. Is this lawgic logical?
Have you ever done the superprep prep book? with the PT A, B, C? If I remember correctly those are Feb tests (hence ABC rather than #'s) They are just undisclosed so they can recycle for other non-disclosed tests (Sabbath/outside countries)
@Sheri123 LSAC has released 4 non-disclosed tests over the years. 3 of them are compiled in their Superprep book, each test titled A, B and C. A 4th test was recently released in Superprep2.
@Mr.lopez, A,B,C are preptests from the mid- ... from the 2010s in the SuperPrep 2 book released by LSAC ... what it is worth pretest C has probably the most difficult ...