Subscription pricing
So i recently refreshed my fundementals on these 2 question types and im running into and issue that,i think, LSAC is playing on.
According to JY NA ACs make a bridge or a block.
Wouldnt blocking a potential argument strengthen it? And similarily for bridging?
0
12 comments
I have to check. Ill pm u
Sorry that comment was for lsatcantwin
What question?
Ah, i guess your right, if the NA wasnt true than the argument sucks so of course thats the one that strengthens the argument.
The problem was that i thought this true also, and ran into a question in pt 56 that had an NA and a strengthen ACs but the question was asking for somthing that would add support to the argument and i picked the NA and was wrong.
@nathanieljschwartz435 said:
Thanks for the replies but i ran into 2 questions today that had a AC that seemed to strengthen the argument and an AC that was a NA
Not understanding how what I originally wrote does not answer your question.
@nathanieljschwartz435 said:
Thanks for the replies but i ran into 2 questions today that had a AC that seemed to strengthen the argument and an AC that was a NA
In a strengthen question, the question stem stipulates that the AC are true. As I wrote above, if a NA is true, it surely strengthens the argument.
@nathanieljschwartz435 said:
Sorry lol, the question was a strengthen question not an NA question
Hmm then I think the argument can be made that one "strengthens" the argument better? That's the best I've got haha
Sorry lol, the question was a strengthen question not an NA question
Right that's the point I'm making. The distinction is that the NA will destroy the argument and the strengthening argument won't. They will put SA/streanthen questions in the AC to throw us off.
Thanks for the replies but i ran into 2 questions today that had a AC that seemed to strengthen the argument and an AC that was a NA
A NA question necessarily strengthens the argument. It's in the nature of the question type. The difference is that if we remove a NA we lose the entire argument because it becomes impossible. If we lose something that helps strengthen an argument we don't lose the entire argument. It's great to see it in this light though.
Example;
YouTube is better entertainment than TV for Bob. It offers better programming. You can choose what you want to watch, when you want to watch it and the commercials are skipable.
NA: Bob has internet.
Strengthen: YouTube always has new things uploaded to it and TV doesn't.
My conclusion is strengthened by both. Without the NA being true, however, my conclusion sucks because youtube requires the internet to use. If YouTube doesn't upload videos all the time, it could still be better than TV.
See what I'm getting at?
An assumption, if true, would strengthen the argument, but the author is simply assuming it; it doesn't mean its true.