so the conclusion that being at home is not necessary for being in one's own house is supported by the premise that we can be in our house without being at home. The first premise (home and /house) isn't used to support our conclusion, which is why C is correct because it doesn't contradict anything, nor does it support our conclusion. it's existence is just compatible with our argument. I hope this helps!
1
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.
1 comments
the argument is like this:
home and /house
house and /home
not (house ---> home)
so the conclusion that being at home is not necessary for being in one's own house is supported by the premise that we can be in our house without being at home. The first premise (home and /house) isn't used to support our conclusion, which is why C is correct because it doesn't contradict anything, nor does it support our conclusion. it's existence is just compatible with our argument. I hope this helps!