I get that the argument "Tigers are mammals" is a stronger assumption than the assumption that talks about aggressiveness. However, I thought that we weren't allowed to bring in outside information? What if we know nothing about what a Tiger or mammal is? How do we determine which one is stronger? Same thing with the aggressive assumption - wouldn't this be considered us bringing in outside knowledge to determine which assumption is more reasonable than the other? I hope this makes sense.
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.
I get that the argument "Tigers are mammals" is a stronger assumption than the assumption that talks about aggressiveness. However, I thought that we weren't allowed to bring in outside information? What if we know nothing about what a Tiger or mammal is? How do we determine which one is stronger? Same thing with the aggressive assumption - wouldn't this be considered us bringing in outside knowledge to determine which assumption is more reasonable than the other? I hope this makes sense.