Every political philosopher of the early twentieth century who was either a socialist or a communist was influenced b...
Morgan98January 22, 2021
If youre confused here is a hint that helped me
The question has a "no one who" in it, an example could be: No A is able to be a B." When there is a no statement that DOES NOT mean that it will result in "Not A --> B" but rather "A --> not B." If the no statement confuses you try reading it as "everyone" or "all" and change the other language to be negative. The LSAT seems to be using NO statements to confuse us, and do not let it
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Furthermore, to make it a positive try to say "A is unable to be" instead of using the statement "No A is able to be a B" This way of phrasing will unconfuse you and will stop you from falling into the trap. I can not offer any explanation of the logic, it was a pattern I noticed after LSAT Max explained it to me.