While I understand the purpose that the Disney argument is supposed to serve in this example, I am struggling to accept the notion that it is a stronger argument than the tiger example.
Walt Disney could certainly bypass the Genie Pass standards/steps being that he is... Walt Disney. Because of this Walt loophole, the tiger example is more likely to be truth over the Disney example since I can't find a weak point in the support—Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. There is no counter to the logic of the tiger argument making it a "valid inference" as stated at the strongest point of the gradient.
2
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.
While I understand the purpose that the Disney argument is supposed to serve in this example, I am struggling to accept the notion that it is a stronger argument than the tiger example.
Walt Disney could certainly bypass the Genie Pass standards/steps being that he is... Walt Disney. Because of this Walt loophole, the tiger example is more likely to be truth over the Disney example since I can't find a weak point in the support—Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. There is no counter to the logic of the tiger argument making it a "valid inference" as stated at the strongest point of the gradient.