Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.6K All Categories
- 27.5K LSAT
- 16.7K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 73 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 109 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 20 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 599 Technical Problems
- 277 Off-topic
PT97.S1.Q24 - Drive-in movie theater
isdmyung
Member
I do not even know where to begin with the ACs.
I understand the stimulus as a theater recently closed because the owner claimed that it could not regularly sustain an audience. Then a week prior to the closure, massive profit resulted.
None of the ACs to me make any close parallel to the flaw that I am clearly not able to identify in this question.
I was thinking, "turns out that the people actually appreciated the theater"?
Is that in the same spirit of AC C?
Comments
bruh that PT must be from 2042 how would i know
The flaw is the assumption that what happens in a specific instance happens in general... part to whole... true of subset vs true of group.
Argument says they profited in the last week so they must have been profitable overall. C says these students who showed up oppose cuts so all students must oppose them too.