Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm


Postby melmoththewanderer » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:14 pm

I use PT40-S1-Q2 as my example.

This is a method of argument question, I believe. So, is the task of this question type to describe how the premises support the conclusion? When I first looked at this question many months ago, I had B and C as contenders. But if you look carefully, C is defensible, is it not? The stimulus says Austin has a tradition of pride and then asserts that Barr has similar pride. What are the grounds against this choice?

Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: PT40-S1-Q2

Postby magickware » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:05 am

Yes, but it would be more appropriate to say that you're looking for the argument style, or method, that is used to argue for the conclusion. So how the stimulus supports the argument is part of this, but not all of it.

Hopefully that made sense.

C doesn't work because it doesn't have anything to do with the method of argument used here. This stimulus establishes a connection between the stables and the car company, however tenuous it may be in reality.

Besides, they don't actually prove anything. They provide a bunch of statements, but no proof for whatever is written in C.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jagerbom79, octiopi and 6 guests