The term "pit bull" does not designate a breed of dog, as do the terms "German shepherd" and "poodle." It is like the...
FS101May 5, 2020
Pitbull is a breed of dog, so why is it saying that “a dog is a pitbull because of what it does not because of its breed?”
I thought that the premise and the conclusion have to be completely true-- especially concerning the "real world". So saying that a pitbull is not a breed is false in the real world. Or are we supposed to pretend?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
This is Question One for the Main Point Questions.
FS101May 19, 2020
Please answer
Motunrayo-Bamgbose-MartinsJune 2, 2020
I don't think that it matters. Just recognize that it is an invalid argument. But, yes, only pay attention to what you get in the question not outside knowledge.
FS101June 3, 2020
Basically you're saying is that everything we read on the LSAT is reality and that we should not use the real-world to apply what we read?
Because if we were to apply the real world, the whole basis of the argument would not be true. A Pitbull is a Pitbull because of its breed. A German Shepard is a German Shepard because of its breed. This has nothing to do with "what it does".
Brett-LindsayJune 23, 2020
If statements (premises) are mentioned as facts on the LSAT LR section, then we just accept them as facts. It's irrelevant if they are true in real life or not.
Let's look at the following statements:
My phone is a brick. All bricks are red. Therefore, my phone is red.
This is not true, but it is logically sound, so it would be valid.
Melissa-BradnickOctober 20, 2020
I agree, I almost find this question to be offensive because of the stereotypes for pit bulls. Just saying this is a poor play on words I guess
