When I read the example the first time it was easy for me to define which one was the premise and which one was the conclusion.
When he flipped it, I am having a really hard time understanding why
"Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
doesn't support
" Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people."
If anyone could give me clarity, I would really appreciate it.
My assumption would be because the first statement is too much of a general rule and saying tigers would be too specific when it should be about just mammals generally.
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.
When I read the example the first time it was easy for me to define which one was the premise and which one was the conclusion.
When he flipped it, I am having a really hard time understanding why
"Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
doesn't support
" Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people."
If anyone could give me clarity, I would really appreciate it.
My assumption would be because the first statement is too much of a general rule and saying tigers would be too specific when it should be about just mammals generally.