The Disney argument is the strongest because it must be true. We know that one of two things (A and B) must be true. We are told that A is not true. Therefore, B must be true.
The tiger argument gives us a statement and then provides an example of that statement. Not all mammals are suitable pets (so: at least one mammal is not a suitable pet). If tigers can cause injury, then we have at least one mammal that isn’t a suitable pet. I think this argument is weaker because, even though we can assume, we don’t know that a dangerous mammal can’t be a suitable pet. We could question what is meant by suitable.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because there are many ways in which the argument could be disproven. For example, we could argue that the cat did eat the salmon. But him being perched on the counter and licking his paw does not necessarily mean that he toppled over the bin. It could have already toppled over and then he decided to eat the salmon.
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!
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.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it must be true. We know that one of two things (A and B) must be true. We are told that A is not true. Therefore, B must be true.
The tiger argument gives us a statement and then provides an example of that statement. Not all mammals are suitable pets (so: at least one mammal is not a suitable pet). If tigers can cause injury, then we have at least one mammal that isn’t a suitable pet. I think this argument is weaker because, even though we can assume, we don’t know that a dangerous mammal can’t be a suitable pet. We could question what is meant by suitable.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because there are many ways in which the argument could be disproven. For example, we could argue that the cat did eat the salmon. But him being perched on the counter and licking his paw does not necessarily mean that he toppled over the bin. It could have already toppled over and then he decided to eat the salmon.