http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q7- ... t3973.html
So, above is a post from Matt Sherman (just scroll down until you see him), this is q. pt 23 s2 q7.
He says we can infer that animals cannot think - but why is this true? It says computers are the closest thing to human thinking, but why does this have to mean animals cant think ? Cant it be true that animals think but just not as well as computers can ?
This is the reason I got this question wrong, we are supposed to infer something from this stimulus that I don't think is really that clear.. if someone can explain to me why I should have known this that would be great.
Can someone help explain this LR q to me? Forum
- WaltGrace83
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:55 pm
Re: Can someone help explain this LR q to me?
If X is closer to Z than Y is closer to Z, both are still not Z.
You are probably confusing the actual definition of "close" or "closer" with how some people use it sometimes. If you are "closer" to X, this precludes actually being X. You cannot be "closer" to something and be something. I don't really know what else to say but I DEFINITELY understand your point. Unfortunately, it just doesn't match up with how "closer" is ACTUALLY supposed to be used. The other answer choices suck anyway.
You are probably confusing the actual definition of "close" or "closer" with how some people use it sometimes. If you are "closer" to X, this precludes actually being X. You cannot be "closer" to something and be something. I don't really know what else to say but I DEFINITELY understand your point. Unfortunately, it just doesn't match up with how "closer" is ACTUALLY supposed to be used. The other answer choices suck anyway.
- flash21
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm
Re: Can someone help explain this LR q to me?
AH this makes a lot more sense now! thanks WG