PT 24, s3, #2

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar

Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am

PT 24, s3, #2

Post by Fianna13 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:54 pm

Why is A wrong in this case? I thought the regular infusion would be necessary for the protection of the earth (skin) from the premise hence the word "without". Yet in conclusion it says the regular infusion is enough ( the protection provided). I can see how the analogy is weak here, but I thought A is more wrong in this case.

User avatar

Posts: 519
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: PT 24, s3, #2

Post by boblawlob » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:41 pm

A would only be right if there was a guarantee that using Deweyfresh gives you full protection.

There is no guarantee. The argument uses and analogy to say that without moisture, there are cracks. Because you don't want cracks, you should use moisturizer. The argument doesn't say that if you have moisturizer, there will be no cracks. Because if that was the case, then it would be A.

Hopefully that sounded coherent.

Post Reply

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”