Match flaws | Logical reasoning | LSAT | Khan Academy

Khan Academy is a nonprofit organization with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere. We offer quizzes, questions, instructional videos, and articles on a range of academic subjects, including math, biology, chemistry, physics, history, economics, finance, grammar, preschool learning, and more. We provide teachers with tools and data so they can help their students develop the skills, habits, and mindsets for success in school and beyond. Khan Academy has been translated into dozens of languages, and 15 million people around the globe learn on Khan Academy every month. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, we would love your help!

[jermsbestfriend]

It makes more sense that E is the correct answer because there is no iff. The iff is implied in the caring-for-cacti response because biological organisms will certainly die if their care is drastically neglected. As readers, we are not informed as to the species of cactus in question; therefore, it would be too much conjecture to assume that shade and watering requirements do not require strict adherance; on the other hand, fashion is highly subjective, and it stands to reason that minor deviations from fashion guidance are low-stakes--social norms would most likely keep the lack of a narrow lapel or double vest in-bounds, even if not both.

I would challenge this question if my answer were graded as incorrect. Unfortunately, I don't know how to challenge questions--nobody has made any videos on this matter in terms of the content I've audited online.

[jaysykes]

I like answer b as well. The question and answer b are making assumptions that are based on factors not included in the information we've been provided. In the question we don't have proof that her tour was well publicized. In answer b we don't have proof that her needs this year are the same as last year.

[yayu]

I’m confuse with the diagram of answer choice D. “Only if” introduces the necessary condition but the narrator reversed it!

[ts]

Shouldn't the logic of A read as follows: "If it turns out, then one followed it exactly and used high quality ingredients"?