Micdiddy wrote:Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.
Lol. Yeah and when you do, remind them that this isn't an LSAT question.
Very rarely does good lawyering, or effective arguing for that matter, rely on perfect logical consistency.
So, I would like some clarification on this so as not to misinterpret your post. Are you saying it's ok in real life to create an argument no one has made, tear it down, and think you effectively responded to the point presented? Doubt you would think that is good lawyering or effective arguing.
Is it ok in real life to take isolated cases and use them to try and argue against a "some" or "most" statement? Like, "Person A: I have some friends in the army," "Person B: No you don't! I'm your friend and I'm not in the army!" Doubt you would think that is good lawyering or effective arguing.
Is it ok in real life to attack someone on personal level in order to avoid addressing their argument directly? Doubt you would think that is good lawyering or effective arguing.
If you don't believe in any of those three things, then please enlighten me as to what I did wrong (and, if it's not too much trouble, what others itt have done right).
I referenced the LSAT not because real life should mimic the lsat (because, in fact, it's the other way around), but because the LSAT is a shared history to people on these forums that deals directly with these flaws and I find it even more absurd these flaws are so widespread on TLS considering that fact.