I found this question difficult when I first did it and still feel it takes time to wrap my head around the logic.
But I wouldn't say that my thought process is different for this question than for any other weakening question or that the correct AC attacks the premise.
The way I read it is that there is a division between the Administrator and the Grad Students about the function of a Teaching Assistant. The Administrator believes that a TA's function is the fund their education whereas the Grad Students believe that a TA's function is either different or greater than the definition provided by the Admin.
Just as with any weakening questioning, I'm thinking that the correct AC must provide some evidence that pushes the division in favor of the grad students. Given the stimulus, it should be something that tells me that the definition of a TA's function as provided by the Admin is limited in some way so as to support the Grad Student's claim.
I'm reading the Admin's premise as a confusingly worded conditional which needlessly complicates the premise that 'TAs are TAs because they need tuition money' but there is a logical gap between evidencing why TAs do a job and what the function of that job is. Since the conclusion is about the function, the Admin has not really provided meaningful support.
By contrast, the correct AC provides some justification for the Grad Student position by showing that the faculty is considering using TAs in a way that goes beyond simply funding their education. This does not mean that the premise presented by the Admin is untrue but, rather, that it is not entirely true - it is only a partial explanation of a TA's function.
This is how I interpret the question as not breaking the mold of a weakening question by attacking the premises. Please let me know if there is some error in my thinking.
0
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 found this question difficult when I first did it and still feel it takes time to wrap my head around the logic.
But I wouldn't say that my thought process is different for this question than for any other weakening question or that the correct AC attacks the premise.
The way I read it is that there is a division between the Administrator and the Grad Students about the function of a Teaching Assistant. The Administrator believes that a TA's function is the fund their education whereas the Grad Students believe that a TA's function is either different or greater than the definition provided by the Admin.
Just as with any weakening questioning, I'm thinking that the correct AC must provide some evidence that pushes the division in favor of the grad students. Given the stimulus, it should be something that tells me that the definition of a TA's function as provided by the Admin is limited in some way so as to support the Grad Student's claim.
I'm reading the Admin's premise as a confusingly worded conditional which needlessly complicates the premise that 'TAs are TAs because they need tuition money' but there is a logical gap between evidencing why TAs do a job and what the function of that job is. Since the conclusion is about the function, the Admin has not really provided meaningful support.
By contrast, the correct AC provides some justification for the Grad Student position by showing that the faculty is considering using TAs in a way that goes beyond simply funding their education. This does not mean that the premise presented by the Admin is untrue but, rather, that it is not entirely true - it is only a partial explanation of a TA's function.
This is how I interpret the question as not breaking the mold of a weakening question by attacking the premises. Please let me know if there is some error in my thinking.