Self-study
Instructor
HenryEwing
The LSAT never came easy for Henry. However, after applying consistent studying, he improved his LSAT score by 27 points from his initial practice test. During his studying, he grew to like the unique challenges of the LSAT and grew to love beating them. Henry decided to become a tutor to help others attain their goals and reach their full potential. He believes that no matter the starting point, anyone is capable of achieving their dream score.
In his spare time, you can find Henry in the pool, on the bike, or in his running shoes, training for his next triathlon.
Discussions
HenryEwing
Sunday, Apr 14, 2024
Hey there!
When weakening an argument, our goal is to make the argument less persuasive; it is not to make the conclusion false. In this problem, we can make the argument less persuasive by saying the Columinist's city differs from other cities. Which means we probably wouldn't expect the exact same results. However, that does not make the conclusion false, it simply makes the argument less persuasive. It could be true that hiring this advisor will pay off in the long run, but I am simply less likely to believe that if AC B is true.
In problem 14, the previous problem, the flaw is that the author thinks a conclusion is false, simply because a bad argument has been given for that conclusion. But that is too far! The author should say that he/she is not convinced that the conclusion is true, instead of saying the conclusion is false. Let me know if that helps!
Hey there! You might be done with the LSAT by now, but I wanted to add that I think this problem comes down to a difference in how we use language vs the literal meaning of words. Consider the following statement:
"Ice cream always makes me happy."
Now consider this scenario: You're walking home, you get mugged, beaten up, and called mean names, and as you're lying on the ground, your assailant hands you a cone of ice cream. Would you be happy?
You would probably say, NO, because in real life we exaggerate. When we say, "Ice cream always makes me happy," we don't mean it; we mean most of the time.
However, the LSAT does not deal in hyperbole. Our job is to take the words as literally as possible. If we understand "Ice cream always makes me happy" in the literal sense, we would be forced to conclude that you would be happy after your mugging/ice cream scenario.
So you're right in a certain sense. It would be a pretty crazy reading of “The law of the City of San Bernardino is: That multifamily housing shall not be built in areas zoned only for single-family housing " to conclude that the only law in the City of San Bernardino is to prohibit multifamily housing in such areas. But if we were to take the statement literally, we would be forced into that position.