I picked answer choice A and I am finding it difficult to understand the idea of how proven to be true is different from proven to be true by observation. I thought that, since anything that can be proven to be true can be proven to be true through observation, proven to be true is a necessary condition of proven to be true through observation-- which is a sufficient condition? Could someone help me figure out what the flaw in my thinking pattern here is.
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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 picked answer choice A and I am finding it difficult to understand the idea of how proven to be true is different from proven to be true by observation. I thought that, since anything that can be proven to be true can be proven to be true through observation, proven to be true is a necessary condition of proven to be true through observation-- which is a sufficient condition? Could someone help me figure out what the flaw in my thinking pattern here is.
#help (Added by Admin)