I'm a little confused about the strength of an argument. Earlier, we discussed how strength is based on premise accuracy, but now he is saying that strength is dependent on the reasonableness of an argument's assumptions. Is both true? At the beginning of the course, he said to throw out any prior knowledge and take what he is saying as absoluate, but both things are said.
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.
I'm a little confused about the strength of an argument. Earlier, we discussed how strength is based on premise accuracy, but now he is saying that strength is dependent on the reasonableness of an argument's assumptions. Is both true? At the beginning of the course, he said to throw out any prior knowledge and take what he is saying as absoluate, but both things are said.