Julie on August 30, 2019
Hi LSAT Max,
I see where the whole-to-part conflict is happening, but I would like some clarity because I first saw it as a part-to-whole flaw.
I thought that MacNeil's conclusion was that he couldn't afford any one of Vidmar's art because the whole collection is expensive (so in my head, can't buy one because all are expensive = part-to-whole). Did I reverse the logic of his sentence? Thanks in advance for the help!
Irina on August 30, 2019