Top Law Schools

George can always play hockey on Sunday.

George can play hockey on Sunday.

My question is can George not play hockey on Sunday according to the first sentence?

Is there a difference between these two sentences?

I don't think that there is a difference between the two that would apply to the LSAT.

Preptest 58, Section 4 #2

It is important for this question in the sense as to whether or not this is a valid argument. Some might think that we are weakening a valid argument, which we force us to dispute a premise (one can always keep one's hands warm).

I'm not quite sure how trying to establish a difference in argument structure by focusing on the presence of a qualifier changes the actual task of identifying the flaw and subsequently attacking the answer choices.

I'll have to respectfull disagree with you here.

BlaqBella wrote:

I'm not quite sure how trying to establish a difference in argument structure by focusing on the presence of a qualifier changes the actual task of identifying the flaw and subsequently attacking the answer choices.

I'll have to respectfull disagree with you here.

Had the last sentence stated that keeping one's vital organs warm can always keep one's hands warm, would you agree that this is a valid argument?

The problem with this argument, in my estimation, is that it is simply says can keep one's hands warm.

With that being said, do you agree that there is a difference between can and can always?

sdwarrior403 wrote:Had the last sentence stated that keeping one's vital organs warm can always keep one's hands warm, would you agree that this is a valid argument?

Not at all as there remains a gap between extra layer of clothing and vital organs. It just speaks on the relation between hands and clothing. Not sound-proof of an argument.

sdwarrior403 wrote:The problem with this argument, in my estimation, is that it is simply says can keep one's hands warm.

With that being said, do you agree that there is a difference between can and can always?

To your latter question, no difference. The time qualifier doesn't change the ability to do something:

I run v. I always run...doesn't change the meaning of my ability to run.

In this argument, "always" is not used as a qualifier, but as an emphasizer. The sentence is affirmative ("can"), and adding an additional affirmation ("always") does not change the logical quality of the statement. Now, had the statement been disaffirmative ("cannot"), then the addition of "always" would place a limitation on the "not" that opens up the possibility for "sometimes."