Top Law Schools

I have some serious issues with double negations apparently.

I cannot even see how to un-negate this one and make the CR true. Anyone?

Are double negations in the LR bible, and would someone care to point me in the right direction in that regard?

man. I somehow was reading 'compromises' from comprises... no wonder I was having issues. Wow.

hey, i once read facilities as fatalities. the stimulus had like 4 fatalities, then answer choice D said facilities. Literally misread it 5 times in a row... crazy.

bakemono wrote:hey, i once read facilities as fatalities. the stimulus had like 4 fatalities, then answer choice D said facilities. Literally misread it 5 times in a row... crazy.

AHH I did that too on the exact same question!! I think it was a mid 30s PT. It was about Australian Emergency rooms or something. I started at that q for like 15 minutes during my review.

Was between A and D on that one, A seemed like the conclusion so went with D and got it right. None of the other answers seemed to be contenders, didn't do negation or any of that.

I know it's been a while but does anyone care to explain this? I was in the same situation as op, but i chose a.

Doesn't matter how old it is if it's still relevant to you

The problem with A is that the conclusion of the stimulus is about a political party's policy. The stimulus does not discuss the actions of specific legislators (which choice A does).

The credited response, in other words, would be something like the following:

"If you're a political party, and you believe something is a good goal, it would be inconsistent of your policy (in English, "of you") to believe that this good goal shouldn't be pursued."

Thanks a lot. I had been staring at that problem for far too long without seeing anything new, and the double negation was throwing me off.