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).
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.
#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?"
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.
27 comments
"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.
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?
I am not sure what he means by strawman argument. Is there a lesson I missed where he discusses it?
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).
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
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.
#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 explanation of both options of answer choice D is still confusing to me. why does one version hold?
#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?"