Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

roranoa
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:18 am

Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby roranoa » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:20 pm

PT26 sec 3 Q10


Answer choice (B):
The argument overlooks that what is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.


I know that this is not the answer but I just want to know what the fxxk this
means and get over with it.


Help please?
Last edited by roranoa on Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

petrovovitch@
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby petrovovitch@ » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:42 pm

it's easier to read like this:

The argument overlooks that what is not susceptible to proof might be false.

and it means

the argument overlooks that things which are unprovable can be false.

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby TheLuckyOne » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:43 pm

roranoa wrote:PT26 sec 3 Q10


Answer choice (B):
The argument overlooks that what is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.


I know that this is not the answer but I just want to what the fxxk this
means and get over with it.


Help please?


It means that just because we can't prove it (not in principle susceptible to proof) it still may be false. In other words, just because we can't prove them unharmful, underifl and overinfl of tires may be harmful in fact.
Last edited by TheLuckyOne on Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
blhblahblah
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:54 pm

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby blhblahblah » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:45 pm

roranoa wrote:PT26 sec 3 Q10


Answer choice (B):
The argument overlooks that which is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.



The argument overlooks the fact that even though something cannot be proven true or false it may none the less be false

I.e., the fact that we do not have the tools to affirm or deny something is no reason to think it must be true, since it could be false

I don't have my books on me, but I'd be inclined to think that the argument arrives to a conclusion that something must be true on the grounds that it hasn't been proven false (i.e., argument from ignorance). (B) points out this flaw.

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby TheLuckyOne » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:49 pm

blhblahblah wrote:
roranoa wrote:PT26 sec 3 Q10


Answer choice (B):
The argument overlooks that which is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.



The argument overlooks the fact that even though something cannot be proven true or false it may none the less be false

I.e., the fact that we do not have the tools to affirm or deny something is no reason to think it must be true, since it could be false

I don't have my books on me, but I'd be inclined to think that the argument arrives to a conclusion that something must be true on the grounds that it hasn't been proven false (i.e., argument from ignorance). (B) points out this flaw.


Right reasoning, but this is the 180 of the answer choice. You will understand when you look at the Q :)

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby dominkay » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:51 pm

blhblahblah wrote:
roranoa wrote:PT26 sec 3 Q10


Answer choice (B):
The argument overlooks that which is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.



The argument overlooks the fact that even though something cannot be proven true or false it may none the less be false

I.e., the fact that we do not have the tools to affirm or deny something is no reason to think it must be true, since it could be false


Yes. To use one of my favorite examples, the fact that we can't prove whether a God exists does not mean that he does.

roranoa
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:18 am

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby roranoa » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:49 am

Thanks everyone!

I don't understand why it is so neccessary to make those answer choices so convoluted though. (at least for me)

User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby daesonesb » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:56 am

roranoa wrote:Thanks everyone!

I don't understand why it is so neccessary to make those answer choices so convoluted though. (at least for me)


To see if you can understand convoluted writing... From what I hear, you encounter it time to time in law school.

Audio Technica Guy
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby Audio Technica Guy » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:33 am

I love these answer choices. You can tell it's the philosophy major wanting to interject a little bit of his frustration with his career path as an LSAT question writer into the test. I call them the lolwut answers and tell my students they're never the answer and just kind of move on with them.

Audio Technica Guy
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Postby Audio Technica Guy » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:35 am

daesonesb wrote:
roranoa wrote:Thanks everyone!

I don't understand why it is so neccessary to make those answer choices so convoluted though. (at least for me)


To see if you can understand convoluted writing... From what I hear, you encounter it time to time in law school.


Legal writing, once you get past the legalese which is simply vocab, is actually substantially more clear than just about any other discipline's writing. You'd never come across a sentence remotely like the one in question.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest