Question 1 of 6

when setting up this game, why did you use workout as a variable?

on September 16 at 03:13PM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q1

•

1
Reply

Scenario 2

Scenario Two suggests the following set-up: N/P? TS P/NO LS Wouldn’t this actually b...

Fiona on August 7 at 11:23PM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q7

•

2
Replies

C

I understand why A must be false, but why is it also not the case that C must be false? If W and ...

on August 1 at 03:33AM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q17

•

1
Reply

Game Setup - How were you able to deduce that t...

How did you figure that the only 2 setups were when 2 Soybeans were either in X and Y or solely i...

on June 26 at 02:40AM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q18

•

1
Reply

Confused on game set-up

I watched the game-set up video, and I am confused why the instructor sets rule 1 as s-->w. Woul...

Taylor on May 28 at 10:11PM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q13

•

2
Replies

The last rule confusion

I am confused on how to structure the last rule. The rule says “neither ty nor ramundo appear in ...

Michael on May 28 at 06:20PM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q13

•

2
Replies

How do you get to this

I got the first few questions right, but was confused how to get this one

on April 23 at 03:03AM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q4

•

3
Replies

order

how do you know the order without factoring in the workout time

on April 22 at 12:35AM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q6

•

1
Reply

Where's N/P in the first scenario?

In the set-up, how come Nam and Pachai aren't accounted for in the first scenario?

Gabby on March 31 at 04:21AM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q7

•

1
Reply

I thought "only if" introduces necessary condit...

Why can't Y have Soybeans without X? I thought necessary conditions can still exist without suffi...

Ziena on February 27 at 03:40AM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q20

•

1
Reply

Complete without grouping options?

How would you do this without having the two options drawn out at the bottom?

Zachary on January 24 at 06:56PM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q20

•

1
Reply

Question 19

Instructor states via deduction that z gets rice. Could you please explain. Thank you

Mark on January 7 at 09:51PM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q19

•

1
Reply

Contrapositive of rule three (If not Y, then R)

I understand that the contrapositive flips and negates the statement. But the rule states that Ra...

Tucker on November 29 at 09:02PM

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q17

•

1
Reply

answer choice here

answer choice?

on October 5, 2019

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q3

•

2
Replies

Q5

So for questions on the logical games section that deals with a "must be true" scenario, I find m...

Morgan on June 14, 2019

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q5

•

1
Reply

Confused

I felt like all of the answer choices could have been true. Could you diagram one or two of them ...

Lizzie on June 3, 2019

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q9

•

1
Reply

Please explain thanks

Please explain thanks

Amanda on November 13, 2017

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q11

•

1
Reply

Please explain thanks

Please explain thanks

Amanda on November 12, 2017

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q14

•

3
Replies

Please explain - thanks

Please explain - thanks

Amanda on November 12, 2017

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q22

•

1
Reply

Question

How are R and Y in the same photo if R=> not Y?

Danielle on October 10, 2017

• December 2004 LSAT
• SEC4
• Q13

•

3
Replies