Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
October 2010 LSAT
Many nursing homes have prohibitions against having pets, and these should be lifted. The presence of an animal compa...
on August 16 at 07:49PM
Why not A?
Why not A?
on August 17 at 04:58PM
Thanks for the question! So let’s walk through the argument real quickly. We’re told that lots of nursing homes ban pets, but shouldn’t. Why (note, by the way, that when we ask why and can answer it with other stuff in the premise, it’s likely that what we’re asking “why” about is a conclusion of some kind)? Because pets have health benefits and can make time at ah one more rewarding.
So now we’re asked for the conclusion drawn in the argument above. (A) tells us that this conclusion is that as the average life span increases, it will be important to more people that life in nursing homes be rewarding. Is that what the premises in the argument work to support? Is that what everything leads up to? If it were, the argument would look like this:?
P: Nursing homes ban pets?P: Nursing homes shouldn’t ban pets
P: Pets are good for various reasons
C: As the average life span increases, it will be important to more people that life in nursing homes be rewarding.
That doesn’t really make sense, right? And that’s how we know that (A) isn’t the main conclusion of this passage. Don’t think it is just because it’s the last sentence!
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.