Q1 - I am confused why it is reasonable to assume that because Mr. White "can cook meth" that he does. The first premise introduces "cooks meth" as a necessary condition to growing weed. The following premise, however, sets up a sufficient condition under which Mr. White CAN cook meth. "Can cook meth" is necessary but not sufficient for actually cooking meth, and it feels like an unreasonable leap to assume just because he can do something, he does.
In the previous Skill Builder we were unable to draw the link between Barbie is expected to make touch decisions versus actually making them. I got this wrong just a few minutes before attempting Q1 here, so I was on hyper alert for scrutinizing the main concepts.
The bigger question here is whether there is any gauge for determining what slight differences in concepts can be reasonably assumed to be grouped together. My assumption is that this is just one of those things you get better at knowing through experience tackling more and more LSAT questions.
Thanks in advance for anyone who can help me understand this!
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!
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.
Q1 - I am confused why it is reasonable to assume that because Mr. White "can cook meth" that he does. The first premise introduces "cooks meth" as a necessary condition to growing weed. The following premise, however, sets up a sufficient condition under which Mr. White CAN cook meth. "Can cook meth" is necessary but not sufficient for actually cooking meth, and it feels like an unreasonable leap to assume just because he can do something, he does.
In the previous Skill Builder we were unable to draw the link between Barbie is expected to make touch decisions versus actually making them. I got this wrong just a few minutes before attempting Q1 here, so I was on hyper alert for scrutinizing the main concepts.
The bigger question here is whether there is any gauge for determining what slight differences in concepts can be reasonably assumed to be grouped together. My assumption is that this is just one of those things you get better at knowing through experience tackling more and more LSAT questions.
Thanks in advance for anyone who can help me understand this!