bilbaosan wrote:PourMeTea wrote:
Why are you fighting all of the explanations people are giving you instead of trying to understand them? A great LSAT tutor (Jeffort) is taking the time to explain the answer choices in a lot of detail, but you seem to be so convinced that (B) is a better choice that you aren't listening to the very, very clear reasoning he has laid out. You will see some improvement if you stop fighting the test and start learning and adapting.
Guys, I really appreciate your efforts trying to explain this to me. And I'm not fighting the explanations, I just disagree with the logic.
Right, because you are using flawed reasoning to support your position, that is your problem that needs fixing.
You keep saying that because the probability (E) gives to Morris getting the shares is not absolute that it doesn't at all make the argument stronger (meaning make the conclusion MORE LIKELY to be true than it is without including the AC as a premise). That is flawed reasoning. The question stem only asks for an answer that increases the probability that the stated conclusion is a true statement, not fully guaranteeing something doesn't mean that it doesn't help. (E) helps the conclusion a lot, so it supports the argument.
Your reasoning is based again on expecting the CR to guarantee the conclusion is true, which this question type doesn't require.
You are still obstinately trying to hold onto the notion that the problem is not with your thinking but is some difference in opinion about the basics of logical reasoning.
(E) increases the likelihood the conclusion is going to turn out to be true, therefore it supports, what is so hard to accept about that reasoning? It is what you keep disagreeing with, why?