The first task is to figure out what the antecedent argument might have been. In the stimulus, the first claim is that the question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere is too imprecise; the stimulus gives a reason that supports this claim (“because we are not sure . . .”). The second claim is that we cannot define the term in more precise way because doing so would hinder us from finding and recognizing intelligent life elsewhere (“since it is likely . . .”). I think it’s best to imagine the antecedent argument as claiming that we should define the term “intelligent life” in more precise way in order to make the question whether intelligent life exist elsewhere is too imprecise. We can imagine this from the two claims made in the stimulus. The first claim concedes that the question is too imprecise, but the second claim denies that defining it in a more precise way is a good idea. The reason is that it would hinder us from doing what we wanted to do: finding and recognizing intelligent life. Hence, “counterproductive.” So (D) would be the right answer. Let me know if this makes sense.
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.
3 comments
The first task is to figure out what the antecedent argument might have been. In the stimulus, the first claim is that the question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere is too imprecise; the stimulus gives a reason that supports this claim (“because we are not sure . . .”). The second claim is that we cannot define the term in more precise way because doing so would hinder us from finding and recognizing intelligent life elsewhere (“since it is likely . . .”). I think it’s best to imagine the antecedent argument as claiming that we should define the term “intelligent life” in more precise way in order to make the question whether intelligent life exist elsewhere is too imprecise. We can imagine this from the two claims made in the stimulus. The first claim concedes that the question is too imprecise, but the second claim denies that defining it in a more precise way is a good idea. The reason is that it would hinder us from doing what we wanted to do: finding and recognizing intelligent life. Hence, “counterproductive.” So (D) would be the right answer. Let me know if this makes sense.
@dkimvisionmaker11514 said:
which section is it?
section 1. Thanks a lot
which section is it?