LR Wording Help

Lizadvocate

Just took an LR practice test & I can’t seem to understand this problem. I think I just get caught up in the language & can’t move past it.

PTC.S2.Q22
Admin note: Please review the forum rules.

4. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.

NotMyName

Where did you find this question?

Lizadvocate

It’s in the Official LSAT Superprep. I believe this is from the Feb 2000 exam. @NotMyName

NotMyName

*Premise 1: not (home + backyard -> house)
Premise 2: not (house -> home)
Conclusion: not (house -> home)

*This doesn't actually support the argument.

This is an odd question but I suppose I'd classify it as Argument Part. The part would be Premise 1 although it doesn't mention the part about the backyard.

Argument Part: not (home -> house)

Since the conclusion is not (house -> home) we don't need that argument part. It doesn't actually support the conclusion but it doesn't weaken it either.

A) Not required. It's not even helpful.
B. The conclusion isn't refuting anything stated in the argument.
C. Right. This part of the argument doesn't contribute to detract from the conclusion.
D) It doesn't do this.
E) It doesn't do this either.

Lizadvocate

@NotMyName Thank you so much-the first premise was confusing me.