June 2010 LSAT
Section 5
Question 14
AnthonyH on June 17, 2020
Hey Katharine, I had the same issue with both of these questions! In the first one, I noticed that the third premise from drill 16 of 32 is actually P: not Z -> not Y. Once I caught this detail. it helped to conclude that Z exists once converted to the contrapositive ( Y -> Z).