September 2009 LSAT Section 2 Question 15

According to the passage, the theory that copyright and other intellectual–property rights can be construed as logica...

AndrewArabie on July 4 at 12:19AM

A vs E

How is depending on a claim any different than accepting a premise? The LR portion of the LSAT is largely focused directly on understanding that arguments depend on premises. I need help understanding how E is incorrect

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on July 11 at 12:40AM

Good question, this is a tough distinction but I think we could sum it up by saying that the author can agree with a statement, and even incorporate it into their argument, but it wouldn't be a necessary premise. That is, without that premise the argument would still stand based on the other premises. I'll try an example.

We could say "dogs are better than cats. The purpose of a pet is to provide companionship and dogs are clearly better at this. In addition, dogs are less likely to be jerks than cats."

In this case, the argument would stand without that final sentence. The author is using it and agreeing with it, but the core of the argument is the first two sentences and the final one is not necessary to the argument. I think that E fills a similar role.

AndrewArabie on July 11 at 04:09PM

Ah I see, thank you Emil. So this is a Necessary Premise question?

Emil-Kunkin on July 19 at 08:32PM

I think it is! Pretty rare for rc but this is one of the few