PT16.S2.Q24 - uplandian supreme court

David Wayne

Can someone give me some feed back on this? The reasoning denies a conclusion in order to show a premise is false. Is that an acceptable method of argumentation? I know that conditionally, if A->B, then negation B = negation A, but does that hold true in this argument? Namely, the argument intends to show that the premise in sentence 1 is false by showing that the conclusion it supports in sentence 2 is false. Is that a valid form of argumentation? Would really appreciate some help on this point; i will clarify if my description is not descriptive enough.

LSATisland

I got rid of most of my LSAT material since I took the test, but if you message me the details of the question I can try to help.

chicheleznf

The last post here has a pretty solid breakdown of the stimulus: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q24-the-role-of-the-uplandian-t1943.html

A much easier way to answer this question is by process of elimination. (E) is the only answer choice even remotely germane to the stimulus.