dalaal on February 22 at 05:50PM
In Argument Completion Drills, I did not quite understand the following conclusion:
P1: X -> not Y
P2: X -> Y
Con: X does not exist
How did you reach this conclusion, what is the logic behind it?
Another question is regarding the following drill:
P1: A exists
P2: Not B -> not C
P3: A -> C
Is the conclusion only the fact that B exists, or should we say both B & C exist?
On the LSAT, are conclusions only the end result since perhaps the fact that C exists could be considered as a subsidiary conclusion?
on February 23 at 02:03AM