Isn't the conclusion here false? The two premises are sufficient conditions. So just because /Jane is no happy, does not mean /sunny day. There could be many other sufficient conditions for her to be happy, birds singing is only one of them. Can someone help explain?
I am leaving a reply because it seems no one else has. This has helped me a bit. Normally, I look at formatting, topic, etc. So much more than what I need, and should be looking at.
13
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!
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.
24 comments
I hate these questions takes so long to read through the answer choices fml
oh man im scared
Oh no. I've been dreading this since the beginning. Parallel Flawed Reasoning, my nemesis....... we meet again.
Maaannnnn it feels good to see the words: "You made it! The final frontier" Woot woot... Making progress!
what's PF? parallel flaw?
I wanted a clear description on what this section is?
Similar reasoning of method or similar flawed reasoning method?
Parallel includes both valid and flawed parallel arguments right?
is there a problem here?
argument is one:
A -> B
/B
/A
but argument two is:
A<->B
/B
/A
if and only if is different from if? is this a flaw in the lesson or are they treated the same on the LSAT?
#HELP
[This comment was deleted.]
Parallel reasoning has always been my Achilles heel. Lets see if we can make some magic happen.
I can already tell, this section is going to make me angry.
If the stimulus is flawed, I know the correct AC has to be flawed too, but does it have to be the same flaw?
For instance, let's say the stimulus overlooks a possibility. Would the correct AC also have to be overlooking a possibility?
If it is a sunny day, birds sing.
If birds sing, Jane is happy.
So, if Jane is not happy, it’s not a sunny day.
Isn't the conclusion here false? The two premises are sufficient conditions. So just because /Jane is no happy, does not mean /sunny day. There could be many other sufficient conditions for her to be happy, birds singing is only one of them. Can someone help explain?
I love this new explanation! I am coming back to review foundations, and I saw this!
I am leaving a reply because it seems no one else has. This has helped me a bit. Normally, I look at formatting, topic, etc. So much more than what I need, and should be looking at.