The Answer for Question 4 regarding the "winner" is objectively incorrect:
If the quality being compared occurs more often, then the "winner" would either be neither quality, or possibly the quality of humans acting unselfishly. The example explicitly states there is "No statistical evidence," for humans acting selfishly to be the "winner," therefore it is fundamentally not reasonable or cogent to declare it as such.
2
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!
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.
The Answer for Question 4 regarding the "winner" is objectively incorrect:
If the quality being compared occurs more often, then the "winner" would either be neither quality, or possibly the quality of humans acting unselfishly. The example explicitly states there is "No statistical evidence," for humans acting selfishly to be the "winner," therefore it is fundamentally not reasonable or cogent to declare it as such.