Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 10 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT47.S3.Q20 - Philosopher: It is absurd to argue
Trusttheprocess
Member
This is a method of reasoning question. I got the answer correct - B - because stimulus goes and defines unnatural and uses that to destroy the absurd claim it sets out to. However, why is AC D wrong? Is it b/c it is partially right and not fully correct. The claim does say doing something unnatural is impossible - hence to a certain degree that would be a contradiction...
Thoughts?
Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"
Admin note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-4-passage/
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-4-questions/