what was most important for me to understand is why the Tiger Argument was the middle- not strongest, not weakest. i think this is due to the lack of definitions present in the argument. sure, we understand tigers are mammals, and that people would not want a pet that is aggressive/can cause serious injuries, but the text does not support that at all. there is however no evidence suggesting otherwise (unlike what is in the Trash Bin Argument), but still lacks the definitions present in the Disney Argument.
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!
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.
what was most important for me to understand is why the Tiger Argument was the middle- not strongest, not weakest. i think this is due to the lack of definitions present in the argument. sure, we understand tigers are mammals, and that people would not want a pet that is aggressive/can cause serious injuries, but the text does not support that at all. there is however no evidence suggesting otherwise (unlike what is in the Trash Bin Argument), but still lacks the definitions present in the Disney Argument.