Hi All:
Can someone please help explain these two questions? The answers are C and E respectively. Thank you very much!!
PT 27, Section 4,Questions 15 and 25 Forum
-
Shrimps
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:04 pm
Re: PT 27, Section 4,Questions 15 and 25
What's your problem with #15? The argument is: beauty cannot be subjective because what people thought beautiful in the past we still find beautiful. So, what can weaken this argument? (A) certainly wouldn't, it would probably strengthen the argument, (B) is perfectly irrelevant, (D) again is irrelevant, (E) is also irrelevant. What can weaken the argument that beauty is not subjective because what was beautiful in the past is still beautiful? The obvious suggestion would be that we're influenced by the standards of beauty of the past - say, by visiting old churches or looking at old paintings, and so on. And that's exactly what (C) does. Even if you had doubts about (C), the other choices either strengthen the argument (A) or are irrelevant (B, D, E).
#25: A vary basic flaw in logic, this one. TE -> SK (TE = tell everything, SK = same level of knowledge). Since not TE -> not SK (since not Tell Everything then NO same level of knowledge, i.e. one reporter knows more than others and can "scoop"). A very awkward mistaken negation that no one would probably make in real life (but the logician who thought up this question did just that for our enjoyment).. The flaw here is that all the reporters could still have the same level of knowledge and wouldn't be able to scoop. That's the answer choice you should be looking for here. That's (E).
Remember, there may be answers that appear "correct", but when asked about flaw in reasoning, your task is to find the answer choice that points to that flaw. (A), for example, merely restates the premise. It's not wrong, per se, it's just irrelevant, and irrelevant means MISTAKE on the LSAT.
#25: A vary basic flaw in logic, this one. TE -> SK (TE = tell everything, SK = same level of knowledge). Since not TE -> not SK (since not Tell Everything then NO same level of knowledge, i.e. one reporter knows more than others and can "scoop"). A very awkward mistaken negation that no one would probably make in real life (but the logician who thought up this question did just that for our enjoyment).. The flaw here is that all the reporters could still have the same level of knowledge and wouldn't be able to scoop. That's the answer choice you should be looking for here. That's (E).
Remember, there may be answers that appear "correct", but when asked about flaw in reasoning, your task is to find the answer choice that points to that flaw. (A), for example, merely restates the premise. It's not wrong, per se, it's just irrelevant, and irrelevant means MISTAKE on the LSAT.
