Based on the idea that we cannot assume truth from our own experiences. How deep into the weeds do we have to go with like terms. We say that not all mammals are suitable pets and then we support it with the way Tigers act. Aren’t we running the assumption that we all know tigers are mammals? They are, of course, but is there a level to this where we would need to explain the supporting statement further such as “tigers are mammals and they hurt people all the time”.
If we used a less obvious example like:
“Soda is an unhealthy beverage. Studies on regular Pepsi drinkers show serious effects of gut health.”
Now do we assume soda as Pepsi, and vice versa? It seems like the relationship is more like the USA/New York one. Or at least can be argued that way. If I was Coca Cola I’d be likely to rebut the definition of soda entirely and bring up how if Pepsi is defined as a type of soda then Coca Cola is not soda, or something along those lines.
Maybe I’m rambling
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.
#help #feedback
Based on the idea that we cannot assume truth from our own experiences. How deep into the weeds do we have to go with like terms. We say that not all mammals are suitable pets and then we support it with the way Tigers act. Aren’t we running the assumption that we all know tigers are mammals? They are, of course, but is there a level to this where we would need to explain the supporting statement further such as “tigers are mammals and they hurt people all the time”.
If we used a less obvious example like:
“Soda is an unhealthy beverage. Studies on regular Pepsi drinkers show serious effects of gut health.”
Now do we assume soda as Pepsi, and vice versa? It seems like the relationship is more like the USA/New York one. Or at least can be argued that way. If I was Coca Cola I’d be likely to rebut the definition of soda entirely and bring up how if Pepsi is defined as a type of soda then Coca Cola is not soda, or something along those lines.
Maybe I’m rambling