Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LR Question  (Read 510 times)

Dixon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
LR Question
« on: August 10, 2004, 09:09:24 AM »
Please explain this to me.

Preptest 27 Section 2 # 7 (page 302 in 10 More...)

If you know a lot about history, it will be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals. But unfortunately, you will not know much about history if you have not, for example, read a large number of history books. Therefore, if you are not well versed in history due to a lack of reading, it will not be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals.

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument overlooks the possibility that

A) many intellectuals are not widely read in history

B) there are people who learn about history who do not impress intellectuals

C)it is more important to impress people who are not intellectuals than people who are intellectuals

D) there are other easy ways to impress intellectuals that do not involve knowing history

E) people who are not intellectuals can be impressed more easily than people who are intellectuals

Answer: D

licheng

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR Question
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2004, 09:15:05 AM »
hey man

logic is like this:

know history -> impress intellectuals

not read books -> not know history

conclusion:

not read books -> not know history -> not impress intellectuals

the LAST step is wrong,

confused suffiecient cond with necessary cond.

thinking about a MATHS prof who can impress intellectuals as well.