Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 7 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 580 Technical Problems
- 275 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/