I was wondering what kind of approach you would take for this question. I used the process of elimination to answer this question because I couldn’t find an effective prephrase, but after re-doing the question, I thought that the part where it says ‘whenever it is feasible for them to do so’ in the ...

The hypothesis here is that if you're PREVENTED from sleeping solely by thoughts, you do XYZ (think about sheep), which does what? Excludes sleep-preventing thoughts. This is different from causing sleep. Keeping something bad out so that something good can happen isn't necessarily the same thing a...

Is it possible to eliminate answers (A) and (D) because they concern laws, (C) for a similar reason that they concern legal permissibility, and (E) because it refers to legal systems? I know the other details in the answer make it incorrect, but I was wondering because this is a principle question, ...

PHENOMENON: This year, significantly fewer highway fatalities than last year AUTHOR'S EXPLANATION: The speed limit reduction led to the fewer fatalities =========== There are two pressure points for an LSAT explanation: 1. Plausibility of the Author's Explanation 2. Alternative explanations for the...

(B) actually would work if instead of "not all" it said "some." I didn't even notice this at first, but another assumption here is that some censorial regimes are totalitarian regimes. But this leaves open the possibility that none are, so it doesn't help us. So just to clarify,...

I know this is not a Flaw question, but I would just like to clarify if this is a valid form of reasoning. Because I don't think you can draw a conclusion that the claim is false based on a premise/hypothetical. Would anyone like to clarify?

The question is: If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be most reasonably inferred from them? Is there a difference between a Must Be True question and this one, which seems like Most Strongly Supported question? Then specifically for this question, how would a Must Be Tru...

I understand the problem conceptually, but would like to try diagramming the conditional reasoning behind it. Premise: All stars but the coolest of the brown dwarfs are hot enough to destroy lithium completely by converting it to helium. Not Coolest Brown Dwarf → Destroy Lithium Conclusion: Accordin...

bbirdwell Wrote:
So a more accurate rendering would be this:
intended for general audience AND [no utility OR no aesthetics] --> flawed

Bbirdwell, how did you get from No Utility or No Aesthetics → Not Intended for General Audience to adding flawed and the multi-conditional above?

I was unable to understand the answer (A) that ‘a true belief can have deleterious consequences.’ Is there a flaw in the reasoning (or reasoning rules in general) about believing/supposing/hypotheticals that I should be aware of? I found another similar question in Superprep Test C (February 2000) S...

The “Unless = if not” is also a handy thought when you come across the rare nested conditional: If A, then B, unless C. I deal with that like this: “If A and ~C, then B” Patrick, can you clarify how you got from the first statement to the second statement? If it doesn't bother you, can I ask for fu...

Can anyone provide clarification on how the inference was made in answer (B)? There is nothing said about gold with a content of less than 92 percent.

Would this be a nested conditional? If it is please explain how it works

Thanks!

Can anyone explain/confirm the conditional reasoning behind this?
I just wasn't able to diagram this at all.

I was able to identify the correct answer using the process of elimination. While I did manage to answer correctly, I feel that I need clarification on the correct answer, specifically on why it is the necessary assumption. It has been established that because the Archeopteryx shows curvature of the...

Given the argument that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes, that they are not distinguishable, I was left with answer choices (C) and (E). I was wondering if (E) would work as a Justify the Conclusion Answer a...

The two-part question was difficult, and I think I have trouble with questions involving percentages. I read the evidence given by the bicycle safety expert that the bicyclist was riding on the left in 15, 17, and 25 percent of the cases. But I didn’t see how this leads to the argument that bicyclin...

Is there a difference between Cannot Be True and Must Be True Except? I did not choose (B) because it says one purpose of writing poetry (not the only purpose) and felt that it Could Be True. So I would like to ask what the difference is between Cannot Be True questions where Could be True answers a...

For the first two sentences of the stimulus, I just wanted to clarify the conditional reasoning involved. Would this be a bi-conditional, then? (If I am taking the wrong approach, please correct me) Pursue Prisoner → Leave Station Leave Station → Pursue Prisoner I chose (D) correctly, but had a hard...

Would answer (E) be acceptable if it were 'some of the 45 most recently founded opera companies were established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience' instead of ALL 45 most recently founded opera companies? Or because the evidence is a correlation, and not established as a ...