PT 58 SEC4 question 2

    • July 20, 2016 at 7:30 am #2275
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      So I’ve always got this question right, in real time and while reviewing. I’ve always been able to eliminate all these answers. However, I’m realizing I don’t q├╝ite get the assumption. I looked and one explanation on the Manhattan site and it said the assumption rested on the fallacy “never”. I looked on another site and it questioned the premise of keeping of keeping ones hand warm by keeping ones vital organs warm. What is the base way to think about the logical assumption in the question? Thanks

    • July 20, 2016 at 7:35 am #2276
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Oh by the way, to me the latter explanation aligned with my thinking. I assumed it was a stretch to believe that by keeping your organs warm you could therefore keep your hands warm as well.

    • July 20, 2016 at 8:22 am #2277
      LSAT Dan
      Participant

      As you know, the premises on the LSAT have to be taken as true. The jump from the premise about keeping your hands warm by keeping your vital organs warm is in the degree of strength – we go from you CAN do this, in that premise (that is, it’s POSSIBLE), to you can ALWAYS do it with an extra layer of clothing, in that second sentence, which I see as the intermediate, or subsidiary, conclusion. That certainty is carried over into the main conclusion – “never.”

      But honestly, going back to my earlier post on Strengthen/Weaken questions, I wouldn’t hit this one with that level of analysis, most probably. What’s the conclusion? The first sentence. On a weaken question, I’m looking for the answer that makes the conclusion less likely to be true.

      If the conclusion is “you NEVER need gloves or mittens,” then I want an answer that suggests that sometimes I actually might need them, and (C) gives me that – it tells me that under certain conditions (at certain temperatures), that extra layer of clothing isn’t going to keep my hands warm. Since that’s the only alternative to gloves and mittens proposed by the passage, now I’m back to think I probably *do* sometimes needs gloves or mittens (or at least possibly), so there’s a decent chance the conclusion is wrong, i.e. the argument is now weaker.

    • July 22, 2016 at 6:45 am #2284
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Thanks Dan

    • July 22, 2016 at 11:55 am #2285
      LSAT Dan
      Participant

      Very welcome…glad you found it helpful.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.