This is only difficult because Mary (or Jamal) misuses the word "right" the second time. One has a (legal) right, but one does not possess a (moral) right as phrased. A person can be right, or be in the right, or have the right of it, but no normal English-speaker would say, "you have no/a right" to refer to someone's relationship to morality.
It was in a written lesson, in the introduction of Flaw-Descriptive Weakening. It is a type of faulty reasoning which in simple terms is = misrepresenting opposing arguments to make easier)
I forget if there is a lesson on it, but a strawman is essentially misinterpreting someone's argument, refuting that misinterpreted argument, and then acting as if you has successfully refuted the original argument.
It works kind of like this:
A: "I believe we should get rid of guns in America."
B: "Oh, so you hate the constitution? Well, this is America, and anyone who refutes the constitution is wrong, so you are wrong."
What is "equivocations," for $1000, please and thank you—prephrased this one from a mile away lol. The concept of "right" is used equivocally. We get "legal" right in the first sentence. Second sentence we get "right" in a different sense (let's say "moral" right for the sake of explanation—something like that).
yeah pretty much the word "right" was used in a different way very close in its meaning but not exactly.... At first glance it completely went over my head but reading it again I can see the difference. Almost like an emotional and logical usage of the word right. Like she has a right to sell because legally she can but no right to sell because what about the people cries....
There is a typo "word" should be "work". :) #feedback
This argument is fallacious because it uses the work “right” in one sense in the premise, i.e., a legal right, but in a different sense in the conclusion, i.e., a moral right. Another, more abstract, way to describe the flaw would be to say that the argument equivocates with respect to a key or central term.
#feedback #help why am i not able to create a LR drill of 25 questions with no more than 2 question type tags? I want to practice doing full section without taking a whole PT.
The second argument is sort of the bizarro world opposite of the first. Jamal argues that despite having the legal right to sell the business, doing so would be morally wrong (she "doesn't have the right" to do so).
Mary argues that because she has the legal right, it is morally right if she decides to sell it. She conflates the two, arguing that if she has one, she has the other. Jamal's argument recognizes and differentiates, whereas Mary's does not.
#help The conclusion of Mary's argument made this question tricky for me. Mary states "obviously, your statements taken together are absurd." This leaves me guessing why Mary thinks this. Would there ever be a stimulus where Mary straight up states: "obviously Jamal's statements are absurd as he is using the word right in two different contexts?"
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
36 comments
Is there a way to see what the difficulty of the lesson questions are? I like trying the question myself before watching the lesson.
@legallysaz yes, if you go to "show question" at the top, then press "analytics" it'll show you!
@Bchaudhry223 Thank you :)
you don't have the right, O you don't have the right
therefore you don't have the right, O you don't have the right
Spelling error in the last paragraph of the analysis of Answer D.... says "How that you see", but it should be "NOW that you see"
This is only difficult because Mary (or Jamal) misuses the word "right" the second time. One has a (legal) right, but one does not possess a (moral) right as phrased. A person can be right, or be in the right, or have the right of it, but no normal English-speaker would say, "you have no/a right" to refer to someone's relationship to morality.
While I understand the lesson, LR more and more feels like a game made up by that kid on the playground who constantly changes the rules to win.
She is actually wrong, not because of J.Y.'s explanation, but because Jamal is not right....he's left.....he has, LEFT, this ridiculous argument.
"equivocates with respect to a central topic" would KO me.
Who are you? I'm Pam. Who are you? I'm the owner of this house.
@ElleEvans LOLLLL this is actually such a good explanation of the question LMAOOO
ok ok
"this question a good exercise in careful reading"
!!!!
I got this one right. Does that mean I am going to be a straight A student in law school?
@EricT024 yes
@EricT024 lets do it
I am not sure what he means by strawman argument. Is there a lesson I missed where he discusses it?
It was in a written lesson, in the introduction of Flaw-Descriptive Weakening. It is a type of faulty reasoning which in simple terms is = misrepresenting opposing arguments to make easier)
Check out the last lesson (37), where he goes over answer D. He explains it pretty well there!
I forget if there is a lesson on it, but a strawman is essentially misinterpreting someone's argument, refuting that misinterpreted argument, and then acting as if you has successfully refuted the original argument.
It works kind of like this:
A: "I believe we should get rid of guns in America."
B: "Oh, so you hate the constitution? Well, this is America, and anyone who refutes the constitution is wrong, so you are wrong."
What is "equivocations," for $1000, please and thank you—prephrased this one from a mile away lol. The concept of "right" is used equivocally. We get "legal" right in the first sentence. Second sentence we get "right" in a different sense (let's say "moral" right for the sake of explanation—something like that).
yeah pretty much the word "right" was used in a different way very close in its meaning but not exactly.... At first glance it completely went over my head but reading it again I can see the difference. Almost like an emotional and logical usage of the word right. Like she has a right to sell because legally she can but no right to sell because what about the people cries....
What, couldn't it be argued that the word right is a referential phrase referring to legal rights? I don't understand the lack of consistency
"Sometimes, ambiguous key terms are allowed to shift in meaning. Sometimes not." oh goodie gumdrops
The lack of consistency with the rules of this test kills me sometimes :(
mhen... I don't like this example.
And it was only 2 star difficulty. :/
you can treat this like a resolve question. i noticed that there is a discrepancy in the argument and so far D was the one that resolved it.
There is a typo "word" should be "work". :) #feedback
This argument is fallacious because it uses the work “right” in one sense in the premise, i.e., a legal right, but in a different sense in the conclusion, i.e., a moral right. Another, more abstract, way to describe the flaw would be to say that the argument equivocates with respect to a key or central term.
Thanks, fixed!
#feedback #help why am i not able to create a LR drill of 25 questions with no more than 2 question type tags? I want to practice doing full section without taking a whole PT.
When you go to advance builder you can choose a PT and just select a random LR section and add all of the questions from that section.
the explanation of both options of answer choice D is still confusing to me. why does one version hold?
Agreed I understand why the answer is right, but when he brought in the other example it got very foggy for me
I think I can clear it up a bit.
The second argument is sort of the bizarro world opposite of the first. Jamal argues that despite having the legal right to sell the business, doing so would be morally wrong (she "doesn't have the right" to do so).
Mary argues that because she has the legal right, it is morally right if she decides to sell it. She conflates the two, arguing that if she has one, she has the other. Jamal's argument recognizes and differentiates, whereas Mary's does not.
#help The conclusion of Mary's argument made this question tricky for me. Mary states "obviously, your statements taken together are absurd." This leaves me guessing why Mary thinks this. Would there ever be a stimulus where Mary straight up states: "obviously Jamal's statements are absurd as he is using the word right in two different contexts?"
I don't think that'd happen because it just gives us the right answer (he is using the word right in two different contexts).