Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K 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
- 1 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
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
PT58,S4,Q18
StopLawying
Alum Member
I get why (E) is the answer here, there's a flaw between the premise and sub-conclusion. Just because a majority are unaware doesn't necessarily mean they disprove of the attempt.
But I'm having a tough time eliminating (D). If we just isolate the sub-conlusion (premise) and main conclusion we get: Since a majority of them obviously disapprove of THE attempt, graduate students at this university should not unionize. Ok, so they disapprove of THIS attempt, but isn't there the possibility that they may want to unionize for other reasons, which is what (D) says? Or maybe I'm just reading this wrong. Any help woulf be greatly appreciated!
But I'm having a tough time eliminating (D). If we just isolate the sub-conlusion (premise) and main conclusion we get: Since a majority of them obviously disapprove of THE attempt, graduate students at this university should not unionize. Ok, so they disapprove of THIS attempt, but isn't there the possibility that they may want to unionize for other reasons, which is what (D) says? Or maybe I'm just reading this wrong. Any help woulf be greatly appreciated!