@emmalc02 "defective" is not the issue here. the flaw of the application of the principle is that it states wilton didn't intend to sell harris a malfunctioned bike. he had no idea it was even broken. answer choice E explicitly draws the comparison between KNOWING something is false and NOT BEING SURE it is false. i hope that makes sense! that's just the way i processed it in my head <3
Alright I feel like the lesson questions are insanely easy, I always understand and then in the 'You Try' I get BOMBARDED with these hard questions. Is anyone else having this issue?
I think the fact is that we do not know if it is in the little information though, therefore we can't apply the rules based on something we don't know. The principle states that we need to apply three different conditions to say that he committed fraud, and we can't do that if we do not know.
He means that it doesn't mischaracterize the stimulus---it is accurate insofar as we consider only the basic shape of the stim. So answer choice A, for example, is descriptively accurate because it is technically accurate: the application does, in fact, fail to establish whether Wilton was given an opportunity to repair the brakes. The problem with it, though, is that it doesn't undermine the argument.
do we absolutely know that they are referring to the seller of the bike when saying "knowing very little about its condition." Couldn't someone easily wrongly infer this is saying he sold the bike to Harris, and HARRIS knew nothing of its condition at the time? I didn't do this, but did feel unsure of who the subject of that phrase was. any insight? #help (Added by admin)
I think it is very straightforward from the rule that we are dealing with the culpability so the application of the rule would naturally be dealing with facts within the domain of the seller.
But if that's not enough and one remains skeptical, there are a few other indicators. First, the grammar/referential is obvious. "Harris" can't be the subject since the preceding sentence put him as the object to which the action is directed. It is Wilton (the subject) that carries out the action of (selling) to Harris (the object).
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
30 comments
this was strung out wayyy too long in my opinion. i feel like i lost concentration on what we were looking for.
Everything made perfect sense until the correct answer showed up, Asserting and this and that ughh too confusing for me
Is the video by Prof Epps gone? :( #help
[This comment was deleted.]
@emmalc02 "defective" is not the issue here. the flaw of the application of the principle is that it states wilton didn't intend to sell harris a malfunctioned bike. he had no idea it was even broken. answer choice E explicitly draws the comparison between KNOWING something is false and NOT BEING SURE it is false. i hope that makes sense! that's just the way i processed it in my head <3
#feedback I really want to see what the priority levels and difficulty levels of the lesson plan videos are, just as we see it for you try.
#feedback. The Dan Epps video is no longer linked
Where is Professor Dan Epps's video gooo :0000 #Feedback
ope
this section is such a rollercoaster lol
omm, this comment is too real. One I get right, the next I get wrong-wash, rinse, repeat.
On the bright side Jimmy - I think the University of American Samoa will gladly take you into their class! Don't fret.
I paused the video and then some other guy started talking freaking me out. Finally I realized there is another video below the main video.
the mini video at the end was so cutesy
Wasn't it? I really enjoyed it.
I'll represent Wilton!
The lecture at the bottom was so interesting! Makes me so excited to learn
Alright I feel like the lesson questions are insanely easy, I always understand and then in the 'You Try' I get BOMBARDED with these hard questions. Is anyone else having this issue?
.
WILTON IS NOTHING BUT A GREEDY FRAUD
anyone else pressing the space bar tp play the video and just confused as hell where the other audio was coming from?
lmao i was annoyed
The "very little" he knew could very well have been that the brakes were defective. Irresponsible for LSAC to leave that window open
I think the fact is that we do not know if it is in the little information though, therefore we can't apply the rules based on something we don't know. The principle states that we need to apply three different conditions to say that he committed fraud, and we can't do that if we do not know.
#feedback Which of the 21 common argument flaws from version 1 does this question fall under?
Can someone please explain what JY means by "desciptively accurate."
He means that it doesn't mischaracterize the stimulus---it is accurate insofar as we consider only the basic shape of the stim. So answer choice A, for example, is descriptively accurate because it is technically accurate: the application does, in fact, fail to establish whether Wilton was given an opportunity to repair the brakes. The problem with it, though, is that it doesn't undermine the argument.
do we absolutely know that they are referring to the seller of the bike when saying "knowing very little about its condition." Couldn't someone easily wrongly infer this is saying he sold the bike to Harris, and HARRIS knew nothing of its condition at the time? I didn't do this, but did feel unsure of who the subject of that phrase was. any insight? #help (Added by admin)
I think it is very straightforward from the rule that we are dealing with the culpability so the application of the rule would naturally be dealing with facts within the domain of the seller.
But if that's not enough and one remains skeptical, there are a few other indicators. First, the grammar/referential is obvious. "Harris" can't be the subject since the preceding sentence put him as the object to which the action is directed. It is Wilton (the subject) that carries out the action of (selling) to Harris (the object).
That makes sense. Thank you so much!