First of all, I love the Johnny Cash reference, Mehran. However, if we are supposed to assume premises are true, then I do not understand the "Boy Named Sue" question at all...
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Great question. Mehran uses the 'Girl named Sue' reference to illustrate one way that an argument can be attacked (attacking the premises by claiming or showing one or more of them to be false). However, as Mehran notes, if we assumed the premises in that example to be true, it's a valid argument. The argument only becomes invalid when we find that one of the premises is false.
For the purposes of the LSAT you always want to assume the premises are true. The way you're attacking the arguments in the LSAT is to show why, even if we assume the premises to be true, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
