PT56.S2.Q11 - Lance: If experience teaches us nothing else

helennzhuu

Help

Hey guys, I'm having difficulty understanding this question. It states:

Admin note: Please review the forum rules:
Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.

I am having a hard time understanding Frank's argument. I know Lance is saying the minimum experiences teach us is that every general rule has at least one exception. But what I don't understand is how Frank came to the conclusion that there is at least one general rule that has no exceptions.. If anyone can explain, it'd be super helpful

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-11/

Vibrio

Lance: General Rule ------> have at least one exception
Frank: Your conditional statement is itself a general rule. Therefore, there must be at least one exception to your conditional statement.
An exception to having at least one exception is having no exceptions.
(If you are unsure, substitute "some" for "at least one". Logical negation of "some" is "none".)
This means there must now be at least one general rule with no exceptions, contradicting Lance's statement.

https://7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-some-statements/

Logic Gainz

Remember, Frank never reached that conclusion himself. Frank is saying that according to Lance's logic, all general rules have at least one exception. The fact that Lance's argument is a general rule itself, implies that it - the first stimulus - has an exception. If we translate the fact that his stimulus has an exception to non-abstract language, then we can conclude that there are some rules that don't have any exceptions.

This is just the first stimulus being negated, which is what @Vibrio brilliantly mentions! @Vibrio, let me know if I've mischaracterized your comment.