>>22190999What's your point? LSAT is about logic in relation to verbal argumentation, not math, not programming, that's what is of interest here.
I'm tired but let's see if I can remember what I found fault with in your reasoning.
No, I'm too tired. I'll just link this instead.
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16556172#p16562360Basically, you said it was affirming the consequent. This was after restructuring the statement. I said we were both right. But now I think you were wrong because it was only affirming the consequent AFTER restructuring the statement, which means it's logically equivalent, but it's not affirming the consequent because the consequent in the original statement was not affirmed. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are in fact always logically equivalent.
I also talked about it in this thread.
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16548964 
