The Disney argument is the most clear and leads you to the conclusion without doubt (two possibilities in the premise, if its not one then it is the other). Then the tiger one still stong but not as much because it states tigers are aggressive and "can" cause serious injuries to people (does not say they always do). Maybe they could be suitable pets if people are very cautious. The trash bin example is pretty weak as it states the cat must have knocked the bin over to eat when the premise shows no support of intentionallt dropping the bin. Maybe the cat is responsible for eating the fish but did not drop the bin himself. This argument is clearly the weakest one as it goes off an assumption more than what the premise presents.
1
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.
The Disney argument is the most clear and leads you to the conclusion without doubt (two possibilities in the premise, if its not one then it is the other). Then the tiger one still stong but not as much because it states tigers are aggressive and "can" cause serious injuries to people (does not say they always do). Maybe they could be suitable pets if people are very cautious. The trash bin example is pretty weak as it states the cat must have knocked the bin over to eat when the premise shows no support of intentionallt dropping the bin. Maybe the cat is responsible for eating the fish but did not drop the bin himself. This argument is clearly the weakest one as it goes off an assumption more than what the premise presents.