So I got this wrong the first round, but I got it during BR because the point of a SA is to make the conclusion 100% valid.
SA's are like an additional premise... so the question you need to ask yourself is what premise added into this stimulus would make the conclusion valid, what AC would make Mr. Kapp wrong?
If you add in D as a premise, we get why this is wrong. If you add any other AC as a premise, we have no clue why what he did was "wrong".
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.
So I got this wrong the first round, but I got it during BR because the point of a SA is to make the conclusion 100% valid.
SA's are like an additional premise... so the question you need to ask yourself is what premise added into this stimulus would make the conclusion valid, what AC would make Mr. Kapp wrong?
If you add in D as a premise, we get why this is wrong. If you add any other AC as a premise, we have no clue why what he did was "wrong".