This is the conclusion of the stimulus in 26-3-10 (flaw question). I just came across this while working on the problem sets lol. Here’s the whole stimulus.
“Tires may be either underinflated, overinflated, or neither. We are pretty safe in assuming that underinflation or over inflation of tires harms their tread. After all, no one has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.”
No one has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.
no one has been able to show
these do not harm tire tread
(no) [one has been able to show] that [these do not harm tire tread]
(no) = group 4
"negate + necessary"
[one has been able to "show"] --> not[these "do not harm" tire tread]
[show] --> not[do not harm]
cancel the negatives
[show] --> [do harm]
one has been able to show --> these do harm tire tread
At least one has been able to show that these do harm tire tread.
I think there's a difference between "these things are harmful" and "show that these do harm tire tread". Maybe the harm itself is negligent to the overall well-being of the tire tread, therefore, you can't really conclude that these things are harmful. Like harmful to which extent you know?
Can you give us examples? I believe it would be Group 4 Translation.
0
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.
6 comments
Thank you! Unfortunately, I am still confused if folks see this!
This is the conclusion of the stimulus in 26-3-10 (flaw question). I just came across this while working on the problem sets lol. Here’s the whole stimulus.
“Tires may be either underinflated, overinflated, or neither. We are pretty safe in assuming that underinflation or over inflation of tires harms their tread. After all, no one has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.”
No one has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.
no one has been able to show
these do not harm tire tread
(no) [one has been able to show] that [these do not harm tire tread]
(no) = group 4
"negate + necessary"
[one has been able to "show"] --> not[these "do not harm" tire tread]
[show] --> not[do not harm]
cancel the negatives
[show] --> [do harm]
one has been able to show --> these do harm tire tread
At least one has been able to show that these do harm tire tread.
I think there's a difference between "these things are harmful" and "show that these do harm tire tread". Maybe the harm itself is negligent to the overall well-being of the tire tread, therefore, you can't really conclude that these things are harmful. Like harmful to which extent you know?
Just because no one has been able to show that they do not harm tire tread does not mean they are harmful.
Just found an example that finally captures my problem: No one (Nothing) has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.
Do you start with the verb? Why don't the negatives cancel out for the meaning of the sentence to be "these things are harmful"?
Also, is there a way to get a handle on the word 'against'?
Sorry to throw so many questions your way!
Can you give us examples? I believe it would be Group 4 Translation.