PT 13, Section 2, Question 20

ChinaCat
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:58 pm

PT 13, Section 2, Question 20

Postby ChinaCat » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:03 pm

"Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is."

"The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument"

a) "Treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well" (the correct answer)

c) "Makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent" (this is the answer I chose)

Could someone explain to me why my answer is wrong and the correct answer is correct?

Thanks.

LawSchoolChampion
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: PT 13, Section 2, Question 20

Postby LawSchoolChampion » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:30 pm

"Makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent" is saying that the claim is general but the examples within the claim are inaccurate.

Both caramels and pretzels are apparently bad for your teeth, and therefore both are acceptable examples to their individual claims.

Individual Claims:

Pretzels are bad.

Caramels are bad.

These claims are both true, and therefore the particular examples" DO adequately represent the respective classes that they are intended to represent.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw, Instrumental, Pozzo, rk42, theboringest and 15 guests