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
- 111 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
- 638 Technical Problems
- 286 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.