Page 1 of 1

Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:20 pm
by roranoa
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?

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:42 pm
by petrovovitch@
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.

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:43 pm
by TheLuckyOne
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.

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:45 pm
by blhblahblah
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.

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:49 pm
by TheLuckyOne
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 :)

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:51 pm
by dominkay
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.

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:49 am
by roranoa
Thanks everyone!

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

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:56 am
by daesonesb
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.

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:33 am
by Audio Technica Guy
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.

Re: Would someone interpret this sentence for me please?

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:35 am
by Audio Technica Guy
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.