Subscription pricing
Just took an LR practice test & I can’t seem to understand this problem. I think I just get caught up in the language & can’t move past it.
PTC.S2.Q22
Admin note: Please review the forum rules.
4. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.
0
4 comments
@jkatz1488955 Thank you so much-the first premise was confusing me.
*Premise 1: not (home + backyard -> house)
Premise 2: not (house -> home)
Conclusion: not (house -> home)
*This doesn't actually support the argument.
This is an odd question but I suppose I'd classify it as Argument Part. The part would be Premise 1 although it doesn't mention the part about the backyard.
Argument Part: not (home -> house)
Since the conclusion is not (house -> home) we don't need that argument part. It doesn't actually support the conclusion but it doesn't weaken it either.
A) Not required. It's not even helpful.
B. The conclusion isn't refuting anything stated in the argument.
C. Right. This part of the argument doesn't contribute to detract from the conclusion.
D) It doesn't do this.
E) It doesn't do this either.
It’s in the Official LSAT Superprep. I believe this is from the Feb 2000 exam. @jkatz1488955
Where did you find this question?