PT 51: S3 (LR) Q20

granato
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:56 pm

PT 51: S3 (LR) Q20

Postby granato » Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:12 am

Can some kind soul help me understand why C is a better answer than E? To me it seems like both C and E are needed. This is killing me.

fosterp
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:09 am

Re: PT 51: S3 (LR) Q20

Postby fosterp » Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:23 am

The original stimulus supports an argument by attacking the character of someone who opposes the argument. C mirrors this by attacking the character of beauticians that are also implied as opposing the argument.

E is a slippery slope argument, and it still a fairly sound one at that given the context that interest on loans is actually does follow a slippery slope mechanism.

granato
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:56 pm

Re: PT 51: S3 (LR) Q20

Postby granato » Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:29 pm

I think we're talking about different problems. The one I'm referencing involves a murder and proving that someone is the murderer.

User avatar
snowballgirl
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:54 am

Re: PT 51: S3 (LR) Q20

Postby snowballgirl » Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:38 pm

Read the first sentence of the stimulus very closely. If there is a possibility that someone else was in the office then it may not be either X or Y who committed the crime; it could be the other person. Ruling out the possibility that someone else was in the office would allow for the conclusion to be drawn more strongly thus justifying it.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Greenteachurro, GurleyGurleyGone, ngogirl12, phelpsy, Pozzo, Tazewell and 13 guests