And because this statement is reversible, I changed it to:
Surgeons -> sight of blood
sight of blood <-s-> Vampire
Conclusion: Surgeons <-s-> Vampire
I don't understand how there can be no valid conclusion. Where did I go wrong?
0
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.
For question 2:
#help
I thought the argument for some before all is:
A -> B
B <-s-> C
Conclusion: A <-s-> C
So this was my answer:
Surgeons -> sight of blood
Vampires <-s-> sight of blood
----
And because this statement is reversible, I changed it to:
Surgeons -> sight of blood
sight of blood <-s-> Vampire
Conclusion: Surgeons <-s-> Vampire
I don't understand how there can be no valid conclusion. Where did I go wrong?