Hi! I have a quick question. As I am just starting out this LSAT journey, I was wondering if there would ever be a situation where the conclusion supports the premise, or another premise entirely. I know in this example, claim #2 (conclusion) can't be a premise because the statement has nothing to do with supporting tiger aggression. When a conclusion supports a premise, is that what is referred to as a sub-conclusion? And silly question but will there ever be a conclusion that supports the premise that supported it? The why claim #2 isn't supportive brought up this thought process so hopefully this all makes sense. Thank you!
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.
Hi! I have a quick question. As I am just starting out this LSAT journey, I was wondering if there would ever be a situation where the conclusion supports the premise, or another premise entirely. I know in this example, claim #2 (conclusion) can't be a premise because the statement has nothing to do with supporting tiger aggression. When a conclusion supports a premise, is that what is referred to as a sub-conclusion? And silly question but will there ever be a conclusion that supports the premise that supported it? The why claim #2 isn't supportive brought up this thought process so hopefully this all makes sense. Thank you!