PT 64, Sec.1, #23

bowenmw
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:25 pm

PT 64, Sec.1, #23

Postby bowenmw » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:33 pm

I feel like an idiot but can someone please explain this logic to me, I am stumped. Thanks.

User avatar
paul34
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: PT 64, Sec.1, #23

Postby paul34 » Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:22 pm

I got this one wrong as well, but on closer inspection, I understand why the credited answer is correct.

If you re read the last sentence/conclusion, you'll see that he says one should not take love in this context to refer to feelings. Why not? Because the promise would then make no sense.

So the implicit assumption is that one should not interpret that promise in a way it makes no sense, (D).

I had selected (C). I guess that even if (C) was assumed, it still doesn't plug the hole that needs to be plugged. Only (D) plugs that hole.

I remember struggling with this one during the test. Not an easy one, IMO.

User avatar
chesterfan1230
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:59 pm

Re: PT 64, Sec.1, #23

Postby chesterfan1230 » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:44 pm

This one is really just about bridging the gap between the statement that promises about love don't make sense and that it shouldn't be referring to feelings when people say it. The only way to connect that is D.

User avatar
pizzabrosauce
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: PT 64, Sec.1, #23

Postby pizzabrosauce » Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:26 pm

I think they inserted that -miniclause- to purposely distract people from the relevant part of the conclusion. Once you see it, its clear what part needs supporting.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Greenteachurro, Majestic-12 [Bot], Walliums and 9 guests