LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 jdavidwik
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: Mar 08, 2019
|
#87352
I can see that Ryan's explanation is the definitive one, but I wanted to throw in my two cents re the other way to translate "without" in Justify SN questions, which mirrors the original Administrator explanation. This involves negating the Sufficient term:
IF > SI (A>B)
PGL > SI (E>B) This is the superfluous premise
IF > ROL (A>C)

Choice B gives us the B>C :
SI > ROL (B>C)

so we get IF > SI > ROL (A>B>C)

that's my "Kids are People Too" version......hope it helps

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.