I really appreciate 7Sage taking the time to expand on Knowledge with regards to MSS questions, but I can't help but deeply hate the way the LSAT takes Knowledge to imply both fact and belief. In the example given here, we just have to buy in to Norbert's foolish superstition? Because the stimulus says he knows the Firebirds will lose, we (the test taker) have to become just as stupid as he is in order to get the question right? In the future when we are all (hopefully) practicing lawyers, are we supposed to just shrug and accept that when someone "knows" something they both believe that thing and that thing is fact? No room for a rational, healthy sense of doubt? Though this is section is surely helpful for our test performance, I fail to see how this aspect of the LSAT tests our ability to be good lawyers.
EDIT: I'm also happy the 7Sage authors noted "Here's the logic (it might enrage you)". It absolutely did!
This lesson says that the problem with the banana argument is that the two-year-old might not be aware that all bananas are fruits, so she can’t make the connection from “I’m eating a banana” to “I’m eating a fruit.”
However, even if she was aware, she might not be able to draw the inference, right? She's two. So I don't think it would be valid even if it were edited to be:
"My two-year-old believes she is eating a banana. She believes that all bananas are fruits. Therefore, my two-year-old believes she is eating a fruit."
3
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.
3 comments
I really appreciate 7Sage taking the time to expand on Knowledge with regards to MSS questions, but I can't help but deeply hate the way the LSAT takes Knowledge to imply both fact and belief. In the example given here, we just have to buy in to Norbert's foolish superstition? Because the stimulus says he knows the Firebirds will lose, we (the test taker) have to become just as stupid as he is in order to get the question right? In the future when we are all (hopefully) practicing lawyers, are we supposed to just shrug and accept that when someone "knows" something they both believe that thing and that thing is fact? No room for a rational, healthy sense of doubt? Though this is section is surely helpful for our test performance, I fail to see how this aspect of the LSAT tests our ability to be good lawyers.
EDIT: I'm also happy the 7Sage authors noted "Here's the logic (it might enrage you)". It absolutely did!
This lesson says that the problem with the banana argument is that the two-year-old might not be aware that all bananas are fruits, so she can’t make the connection from “I’m eating a banana” to “I’m eating a fruit.”
However, even if she was aware, she might not be able to draw the inference, right? She's two. So I don't think it would be valid even if it were edited to be:
"My two-year-old believes she is eating a banana. She believes that all bananas are fruits. Therefore, my two-year-old believes she is eating a fruit."