Subscription pricing
Hey fellow 7Sagers! I am having a hard time understanding question 11of S1, PT 65. I was a little apprehensive of asking for help for this question, but I really can't understand why A is correct. Can someone please help clarify this for me? Thank you.
Admin note: edited title
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-1-question-11/
0
2 comments
Thank you! I was stuck on this but your explanation helped.
Okay I'm going to answer without looking at the answer choices. I only read the stimulus. Let me know if it helps you understand.
Basically, "you have a claim without an explanation." That is the flaw.
Whoever stole the diamond must have worn gloves. How the hell do you come to that conclusion, just by the fact that you only have one person fingerprints on the premises. Nothing explains why that person necessarily wore gloves.
So I would look for an argument that makes claim but does provide enough justification or explanation to support the claim. This is a classic LSAT question or some would say cookie cutter question.
"Claim with no support or very weak support" in other words a claim that requires us to make reject many assumptions and make many assumptions to get to the claim.
E.g. I need to assume that only way not to get fingerprints on the premises is to wear gloves. It could be that I used a pliers without wearing gloves to open everything and steal the jewelry. (I hope you see where I am going with this).