In the first example, the information about zebra stripes is context, not supportive of the conclusion, despite the conclusion implying that the zebra striped coat is WHY flies did not land on them.
In the second example, zebra stripes are a supportive premise for the conclusion.
Why is the mention of zebra stripes context in the first example, and a premise in the second?
1
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.
In the first example, the information about zebra stripes is context, not supportive of the conclusion, despite the conclusion implying that the zebra striped coat is WHY flies did not land on them.
In the second example, zebra stripes are a supportive premise for the conclusion.
Why is the mention of zebra stripes context in the first example, and a premise in the second?