Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

LR Wording Help

LizadvocateLizadvocate Alum Member
edited October 2018 in General 29 karma

Just took an LR practice test & I can’t seem to understand this problem. I think I just get caught up in the language & can’t move past it.

PTC.S2.Q22
Admin note: Please review the forum rules.

4. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.
Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐
    5320 karma

    Where did you find this question?

  • LizadvocateLizadvocate Alum Member
    29 karma

    It’s in the Official LSAT Superprep. I believe this is from the Feb 2000 exam. @NotMyName

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐
    edited October 2018 5320 karma

    *Premise 1: not (home + backyard -> house)
    Premise 2: not (house -> home)
    Conclusion: not (house -> home)

    *This doesn't actually support the argument.

    This is an odd question but I suppose I'd classify it as Argument Part. The part would be Premise 1 although it doesn't mention the part about the backyard.

    Argument Part: not (home -> house)

    Since the conclusion is not (house -> home) we don't need that argument part. It doesn't actually support the conclusion but it doesn't weaken it either.

    A) Not required. It's not even helpful.
    B. The conclusion isn't refuting anything stated in the argument.
    C. Right. This part of the argument doesn't contribute to detract from the conclusion.
    D) It doesn't do this.
    E) It doesn't do this either.

  • LizadvocateLizadvocate Alum Member
    29 karma

    @NotMyName Thank you so much-the first premise was confusing me.

Sign In or Register to comment.