October 2010 LSAT Section 1 Question 1

By referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as "purely programmatic" (line 49) in nature, the author mo...

GAM on December 9, 2020

Clarification

For example two, we are told that reptile -> air breathing vertebrate with ossified skeletons. But, It is not necessarily true from this that: if (not) reptile -> (not) air breathing vertebrate with ossified skeleton. So, why is it a NECESSARY assumption that alligators are reptiles if they are air breathing vertebrate with ossified skeletons? would we not need an "if and only statement" in our R->ABVWOS premise for this to be the case? I see that it strengthens the argument, by solidifying/making explicit a hanging assumption, but this does not seem to conform to the 100% degree of certainty required in sufficient and necessary conditions. Thank you in advance.

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

GAM on December 17, 2020

can i get a response please? This seems to be a recurring glaring flaw in your explanation of necessary premise questions.

GAM on December 17, 2020

there is nothing in the S/N logic that introduces an exclusive relationship between R and ABVCOS. So, although R may not exist, there may be another type of organism that is an ABVCOS, and not being an R does not necessitate not being an ABVCOS

GAM on December 31, 2020

hello?

GAM on January 17, 2021

still waiting.