LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2016

That was a great explanation and I get your point. I also misinterpreted the rules for multiple conditions and had to reread them to understand. I know now that the contrapositive of the statement necessitates that if you are not all of three things (D,A,S) then the statement fails and that would be a misrepresentation. Thanks.
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: Aug 05, 2019
Hi! I came across this question, so the sole reason that E is incorrect is because there's a difference between sending a message and people actually understanding the message?

 Zach Foreman
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2019
Not exactly. The main problem with answer E, as Adam pointed out, is that the car is not necessarily involved. It states that recognition of the person is independent from ownership. They could be away from the car (in the grocery store?) or perhaps they don't even own the car yet but would choose to own it if they could.
Maybe it would be correct if it said "Almost no one would fail to recognize the kind of person who owns an SKX Mach-5", which removes the problematically ambiguous "chooses to own".

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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