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
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 25 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
- 37 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
- 635 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
PTC.S2.Q13 - One of the primary values of a university...
whistlingplant
Live Member
So I realize why it's C (reason for M's comeback "even students in technical majors are requred..."), but initially chose B. Can we rule B out because we are unsure of Ramona's stance on B?
Comments
We can rule out B because we not sure on either Ramona's or Martin's stance on this. Martin just used one case of person with a non-technical degree having a "poor" job. Poor job is also in quotations because B would also force you into inferring that being a waiter is indeed a poor job. Just because Martin uses this case does not mean he believes only graduates with degrees in technical jobs get good jobs. If he believes that even at least one person with a non-technical job gets a job then B is not consistent