Law School Discussion

Feb. 2000 Sec2. LR1 Q.22


  • ****
  • 274
    • MSN Messenger -
    • View Profile
    • Email
Feb. 2000 Sec2. LR1 Q.22
« on: May 27, 2007, 02:26:11 PM »

I'm having a hard time understanding what the heck this question is about. It's just such a weird wording.
It's Q.22 from the first LR section(sec.2), Feb. 2000. Is there a conditional reasoning involved? or do you just get it?

I figured it as a conditional reasoning. something like,

being at home -> ~being in the house (first sentence)
being in the house -> ~being at home (second sentence)
being in the house -> ~being at home (conclusion, third sentence)

So, I put (C) and got it right. but I'm not confident if I did it the right way.

Hope somebody can help me...
I always appreciate your help.


  • ****
  • 255
  • "You're going to cure death? MUAHAHAHA...doubt it"
    • View Profile
Re: Feb. 2000 Sec2. LR1 Q.22
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2007, 02:18:22 AM »
Okay. This question is fun.

Premise: you can be 'home' but not IN your home.
Premise: You can be in your house, but not home.

Conclusion: ~(Being in your home ---> Being at home)

Reads: It is not the case that being at home is required to be in your home.

What does the first premise and the conclusion have to do with each other? NOTHING. They really have no relationship as far as I can tell.

Answer C is correct because if the conclusion were false or if the conclusion were true, the first premise, having nothing really to do with the drawing of the conclusion, would 'conform'...meaning, could be true. The validity of the conclusion has no domain or significance over the premise.