I think it's because E contradicts the first premise, which isn't what we're supposed to be doing. We're trying to attack the reasoning of the argument (hence the gaps/assumptions) rather than the truth of the premises. We have to be charitable and assume the premises are true, and try to find out why the conclusion might be wrong even if they are true. idk if that makes sense my brain is fried too lol
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 think it's because E contradicts the first premise, which isn't what we're supposed to be doing. We're trying to attack the reasoning of the argument (hence the gaps/assumptions) rather than the truth of the premises. We have to be charitable and assume the premises are true, and try to find out why the conclusion might be wrong even if they are true. idk if that makes sense my brain is fried too lol