Subscription pricing
Relative v. absolute
A is faster than B, therefore A is fast. Well, not necessarily. A is faster than B in relative terms. It doesn’t imply that A is fast in absolute terms. For example, we know that the conclusion in this statement is not true: “Hippopotamuses are smaller than an elephants. Therefore, hippopotamuses are small.” Or take this statement: “Turtles are faster than ants. Therefore, turtles are fast.”
Can someone please explain this?
1
6 comments
@jordankennedy480 said:
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-22/
Great example of this here! I am happy to work through it with you if you have questions :)
This is great (3 @khanumshazia3803 I would definitely take him up on that offer. Working one on one can be really helpful. Thanks @jordankennedy480. : )(/p)
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-22/
Great example of this here! I am happy to work through it with you if you have questions :)
Tanes... its flaw questions I'm confused.
thanks Sami. I understand the examples but when its lsat question I'm confused.
@khanumshazia3803 you got it! Obviously you're still missing something though. Can you be more specific? What's not clicking for you? One just is and the other only is in specific instances.
@khanumshazia3803 said:
Relative v. absolute
A is faster than B, therefore A is fast. Well, not necessarily. A is faster than B in relative terms. It doesn’t imply that A is fast in absolute terms. For example, we know that the conclusion in this statement is not true: “Hippopotamuses are smaller than an elephants. Therefore, hippopotamuses are small.” Or take this statement: “Turtles are faster than ants. Therefore, turtles are fast.”
Can someone please explain this?
I think you got this! Those are great examples (3(/p)
Another one just for kicks : )
Premise: Jane got a higher LSAT score than Tom.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jane got a high LSAT.
In reality Jane could have gotten a 150 while Tom got a 142. Doesn't mean Jane got a high LSAT score, she actually got a low score of 150 in this case.
It's possible that Jane got a 179 and Tom got a 165 and Jane indeed did have a high LSAT score. But just based on our original statement that Jane's score is higher than Tom we can't presume that Jane's actual score is high. She could have scored a 150 or 179 or any other LSAT score that's higher than Tom. Doesn't mean its actually high. It's possible its high but we can't be sure - and that's why its a flaw. (3(/p)
I hope that helped.