pg.52 & pg.56 &65 & pg.71 &pg.79 of 5lb drill

[RogerD345]

pg. 52

Q.22 of pg.52. shouldn't this be as much as qualified as conditional, i do not see how this is a mandate conclusion .

q.23. i understand this is explanation and conditional natured conclusion but also, can't this be prediction ?

Pg.56.

hi. question 9 of pg. 56, even though this is mandate, isn't also conditional nature strongly exist?

pg.65.

Question 25.

shouldn't this be

K----> H or K <----> all of H but more likely K <----> all of H
Since all made of Horn, is decorated by sufficient condition indicator. but the sentence basically saying both of the condition can be sufficient condition for either.

pg. 71 of q.1.

Q.1.somebody from out committee needs to attend friday's meeting. ; this sentence i don't see how this sentence expresses any form of quantifiers.

pg. 79 of q.5.

Q.5. If we don't get new tires and a replacement blinker, then we will crash the car or get a ticket.
: ~NT or ~RB ---> C or T; ~C and ~T ---> NT and RB

shouln'dt this be ~NT AND ~RB ---> C or T

[ohthatpatrick]

Going forward, try posting in that 5 Lb. folder again. I think they fixed it:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... f1339.html

pg. 52
Q.22
Yes, I can see how you could say that it's also Qualified "Any truly complete collection ..."
It's Conditional since it's a universal, "Any"
and it's a mandate because it's so certain of itself "is sure to ...."

q.23.
Predictions, by definition, are future tense.
This is a causal statement that looks backwards: "I conclude that someone must have talked Emily into this".

I think you're letting "prediction" and "hypothesis" be interchangeable in your brain, because in a science experiment we sometimes use those interchangeably in terms of what expected outcome the experiment may have. But a hypothesis does not have to be forward looking. LSAT causal arguments are all looking at the past/present and saying "I hypothesized that X caused this / X is causing this."



Pg.56.
Q9, yeah, you could still call it a conditional, technically.
"If it's a govt attempt to control info on Internet, then we should resist it"

pg.65.
Q25
It's correct as written. The sentence is that
"horns are all made of keratin"
which is the same as "all horns are made of keratin"

When you write "K----> H"
you're saying, "If I see something is made of keratin, then it's guaranteed to be a horn." Huh?
The sentence in Q25 isn't saying that "only horns are made of keratin". Seeing keratin doesn't guarantee that I'm looking at a horn. But seeing a horn guarantees that I'm looking at something made of keratin.


pg. 71 .
Q1.
"somebody" = at least one person
That's the quantifier.

pg. 79
Q5
Consider this one, "If we don't have pizza and beer, the party will be lame."

Okay, you don't have pizza. Is that enough to know that the party will be lame?


Yes. According to the rule, if you don't have both pizza and beer, the party will be lame.
If there's no pizza, then you definitely don't have pizza and beer. You may have beer, but you don't have both pizza and beer, so therefore the party will be lame.

Since no-pizza, by itself, triggers a lame party,
and no-beer, by itself, would trigger a lame party, we'd be saying
~Pizza OR ~Beer --> Lame Party

The contrapositive is saying
Not Lame Party ----requires---> Pizza AND Beer

When you're negating an AND, it results in an OR (and vice versa).

We were just saying
~(Pizza AND Beer) --> Lame Party

If you 'distribute' that 'not', you get
~Pizza OR ~Beer --> Lame Party

Similarly, in Q5, we're saying "if we don't get both new tires and a replacement blinker, we'll crash or get a ticket".
~(New Tires AND Replacement Blinker) --> Crash or Ticket

distributed:
~New Tires OR ~Replacement Blinker --> Crash or Ticket