December 2013 LSAT Section 3 Question 20

Taylor: From observing close friends and relatives, it is clear to me that telepathy is indeed possible between peopl...

francolby on August 5 at 08:11PM

Confused by explanation of option b

it says "when a conclusion states something is "possible" or "can happen" there only need to be one single example to establish that. Then it says "when an argument concludes one explanation for an observed phenomenon, the argument is flawed in that it ignores other potential explanations." How are these different? They seem to be contradicting each other. If you only need one explanation why would you then need alternate explanations?

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

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on August 5 at 09:47PM

The explanation isn't saying one only needs one explanation, it's saying that to show something is possible, one needs only show that it happens once. However, if you are trying to show that something is possible by giving supposed instances of it happening, we can weaken the idea it's possible to suggesting that maybe the thing in question never actually happened, and instead it was something else. This is exactly what B is, there's other possible explanations for the fact that people who know each other well know what the other is thinking at times.