I understand that (A) is a better answer than (D) and that choosing (D) requires some mental gymnastics, but I still think there is some unintentional straw manning going on in the author's argument in that Armot is technically making an argument about a hypothetical world (certain changes in the government "WOULD" take away social ills... never says that they are/are not going to happen). Therefore, the newspaper subscriber's attack of the assumption required for the conditions of that hypothetical world to be met is completely irrelevant because Armot never comments on the likelihood of those changes happening. For all we know, Armot agrees with the newspaper subscriber that the government is unlikely to act in the public's best interests and merely believes that if it did happen, our most vexing social ills would be eliminated.
Does this resonate with anyone? Please let me know if I am missing something!
3
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 understand that (A) is a better answer than (D) and that choosing (D) requires some mental gymnastics, but I still think there is some unintentional straw manning going on in the author's argument in that Armot is technically making an argument about a hypothetical world (certain changes in the government "WOULD" take away social ills... never says that they are/are not going to happen). Therefore, the newspaper subscriber's attack of the assumption required for the conditions of that hypothetical world to be met is completely irrelevant because Armot never comments on the likelihood of those changes happening. For all we know, Armot agrees with the newspaper subscriber that the government is unlikely to act in the public's best interests and merely believes that if it did happen, our most vexing social ills would be eliminated.
Does this resonate with anyone? Please let me know if I am missing something!