PT 39, Section 4, Q 15:
Ruth: To become a politician, a person should be required to have a diversity of experience. The more diverse once's experience, the more one will understand the need for compromise:
Stephanie: To be worthy of public trust, it is not enough, as you suggest, that one simply have varied experience. Such a person would not necessarily be worthy of public trust.
Which is a flaw in Stephanie's response?
The correct answer is (C) the response attributes to Ruth a view that is more vulnerable to ciriticism than any she actually expresses...................I agree this is the most correct answer as it is a confusion of sufficient/necessary and steph misrepresents ruths argument.
Kaplan's explanation for why answer choice (A) - "the response simply asserts a point of view opposite to Ruth's without giving reasons for it" - is incorrect is that the say Stephanie's second sentence is indeed evidence and does provide reasons. Is virtually repeating her conclusion "evidence"????
Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 7:53 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests