PT 16 Section 2 # 24

pimpalicious1
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:27 am

PT 16 Section 2 # 24

Postby pimpalicious1 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:03 pm

Hopefully I posted the right PT # (September 95). I can easily eliminate all of the wrong choices and I know the answer is E, but I don't understand why that is the answer. Can someone please explain to me what the false premise is and how it could be true and some other premise false? I am just having trouble finding exactly what premise in the passage they are talking about (which one is false). Thanks!

User avatar
Nikrall
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:25 pm

Re: PT 16 Section 2 # 24

Postby Nikrall » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:16 pm

The first conclusion is that the role of the supreme court is to protect all human rights. The second conclusion is that the court must uphold the constitution objectively.

Since the constitution does not protect all human rights, these two conclusions are inconsistent.

However the final conclusion is that it cannot be true that the court protects all human rights. However it could equally be as true that the court doesn't always uphold the constitution objectively.

There are two competing claims here, and the final conclusion arbitrarily decides that one is false. Thats why E is right, and thats what makes the argument flawed.

pimpalicious1
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:27 am

Re: PT 16 Section 2 # 24

Postby pimpalicious1 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:30 pm

Nikrall wrote:The first conclusion is that the role of the supreme court is to protect all human rights. The second conclusion is that the court must uphold the constitution objectively.

Since the constitution does not protect all human rights, these two conclusions are inconsistent.

However the final conclusion is that it cannot be true that the court protects all human rights. However it could equally be as true that the court doesn't always uphold the constitution objectively.

There are two competing claims here, and the final conclusion arbitrarily decides that one is false. Thats why E is right, and thats what makes the argument flawed.


Cool, that clears it up, thank you. I guess I should have looked at the conclusion at the bottom first and then gone back and figured out what those two subsidiary conclusions were. Thanks again!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vino.Veritas, WeightliftingThinker and 18 guests