I think I got it. The gap in this argument is between the premise and the intermediate conclusion. Essentially the author presents a false dichotomy. The correct answer will most likely protect the argument against an explanation that will foil this dichotomy, i.e, one that will present an alternative solution.
(A) Whenever I see answer choices with absolute quantifiers like "all" in NA questions I am immediately suspicious. This doesn't need to be true because even if it were the argument leaves us with the possibility of doing without such resources, so the argument isn't necessarily destroyed.
(B) Bingo. This negates an alternative solution i.e., "third way" to the false dichotomy presented in the argument that if true would completely destroy the validity of the argument.
(C) Like (A) this doesn't need to be true because if it wasn't we still have the possibility of doing without such resources.
(D) Out of scope. We don't care about the rate of consumption.
(E) Even if this were not true there's still the possibility of just replacing them so this doesn't need to be true.
Thanks for your response Jonathan, my question was about PT35.S1.Q18. I think a mod edited my post when I originally posted it, and put int he wrong question. I've just seen it and changed it back.
Where is that claim ever made in the stimulus? Can't support a statement that was never made.
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
3 comments
I think I got it. The gap in this argument is between the premise and the intermediate conclusion. Essentially the author presents a false dichotomy. The correct answer will most likely protect the argument against an explanation that will foil this dichotomy, i.e, one that will present an alternative solution.
(A) Whenever I see answer choices with absolute quantifiers like "all" in NA questions I am immediately suspicious. This doesn't need to be true because even if it were the argument leaves us with the possibility of doing without such resources, so the argument isn't necessarily destroyed.
(B) Bingo. This negates an alternative solution i.e., "third way" to the false dichotomy presented in the argument that if true would completely destroy the validity of the argument.
(C) Like (A) this doesn't need to be true because if it wasn't we still have the possibility of doing without such resources.
(D) Out of scope. We don't care about the rate of consumption.
(E) Even if this were not true there's still the possibility of just replacing them so this doesn't need to be true.
Thanks for your response Jonathan, my question was about PT35.S1.Q18. I think a mod edited my post when I originally posted it, and put int he wrong question. I've just seen it and changed it back.
Where is that claim ever made in the stimulus? Can't support a statement that was never made.