Subscription pricing
help would there be a circular reasoning flaw if a stimulus presents 2 premises, 1 that repeats the conclusion, and another that does not repeat the premise but has a separate flaw.
0
help would there be a circular reasoning flaw if a stimulus presents 2 premises, 1 that repeats the conclusion, and another that does not repeat the premise but has a separate flaw.
3 comments
Hello @motunrayobbmartins501 Yes I think that would constitute the flaw. the LSAT could ask that and it could be the correct (supporting the conclusion with a premise that restates the conclusion) answer, however, on the LSAT it is usually explicit when they employ that flaw. The LSAT has given 2+ premises on other question types but only decided to 'use' or implicate one for the correct answer choice. I have seen that in SA/NA and MBT/MBF and Strengthen questions.
@fyepes582 okay, so if a stimulus mentioned: Anna believes that cats are scary. Her belief is correct, because of how scary cats are. Also, she had a traumatic event as a child in which a cat bit her severely.
The idea of a circular argument is repeating the premise. However, what if like here, the author also presented another premise that actually works. Would that still be the flaw? Does this make sense :(
Theoretically, yes: that could happen... As you may know, an argument can have multiple flaws. However, I think I need to see a question that describes such an argument. The more I think about it, the more I go against my answer above! Hahaha