PT.17.S3.Q.16 Forum
-
Barack Obama 2.0
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 8:00 pm
PT.17.S3.Q.16
I got this question correct, but I am having a bit of trouble comprehending the abstract and obfuscatory language for answer choice C. What exactly is it saying and can someone provide me with an example?
-
Blueprint Mithun
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm
Re: PT.17.S3.Q.16
Agreed, that is a chunk of confusing language. It says that the flaw is "concluding that an unknown instance of a phenomenon must have all the properties of the known instances." I can't think of any specific LSAT arguments that fit this mold, but I the best way I can simplify it would be: assumes that an example of something must have every property of the previously observed examples of that thing."
So let's take, I dunno, a supernova. An argument might refute that a rumored supernova happened on the basis that it was missing one or more qualities that we usually observe in supernovas. It's possible that the event we're talking about could have still been a supernova, even if one or more characteristics of it were unusual. It could be a new variation that has never been observed before, but still be the same type of phenomenon.
Not sure if that explained it very well, but that's the best I could do.
So let's take, I dunno, a supernova. An argument might refute that a rumored supernova happened on the basis that it was missing one or more qualities that we usually observe in supernovas. It's possible that the event we're talking about could have still been a supernova, even if one or more characteristics of it were unusual. It could be a new variation that has never been observed before, but still be the same type of phenomenon.
Not sure if that explained it very well, but that's the best I could do.
