Law School Discussion

and another question

and another question
« on: July 19, 2007, 03:52:09 PM »
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

I found this argument to be legit. but the question says it is flawed.
Can someone diagram this for me? and tell me why
"all the primates in the zoo were gorillas. the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only prmates in the zoo were small primates." is correct?

Re: and another question
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2007, 03:52:37 PM »
it's parallel reasoning question

Re: and another question
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2007, 04:12:01 PM »
It seems like it is incorrect because it is using a general term instead of a specific term.

I think that the logical conclusion, for the first statement, would be that all the tulips in the garden were tall tulips.

Just like the second, it should be that the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas.

I also think it has something to do with the misconception that the terms are interchangeable.

A plant is a broad term that contains many sub-categories, while tulips are a specific reference to a type of plant.

I could be wrong, and heck... I probably am wrong.

This is quite a difficult example.

Re: and another question
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2007, 04:42:37 PM »
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

I found this argument to be legit. but the question says it is flawed.
Can someone diagram this for me? and tell me why
"all the primates in the zoo were gorillas. the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only prmates in the zoo were small primates." is correct?

The argument is confused about how adjectives work.

Okay, let's say you have a SHORT giraffe. Now, the word short here, because it's placed before the word giraffe, indicates that the giraffe in question is short relative to other giraffes. However, is this short giraffe also a SHORT ANIMAL? Probably not. In fact, it's probably TALL relative to other animals. Make sense?

Re: and another question
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2007, 05:06:51 PM »
ok i am confused even more now....  :'(

Re: and another question
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2007, 05:11:36 PM »
thank you for your help though!

Re: and another question
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2007, 05:26:40 PM »
Was I sort of on track?

What the hell... I don't believe I've seen anything like this on the LSAT.

Re: and another question
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2007, 08:02:05 PM »
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

I found this argument to be legit. but the question says it is flawed.
Can someone diagram this for me? and tell me why
"all the primates in the zoo were gorillas. the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only prmates in the zoo were small primates." is correct?

The argument is confused about how adjectives work.

Okay, let's say you have a SHORT giraffe. Now, the word short here, because it's placed before the word giraffe, indicates that the giraffe in question is short relative to other giraffes. However, is this short giraffe also a SHORT ANIMAL? Probably not. In fact, it's probably TALL relative to other animals. Make sense?


OMGGGGG I get it :)
MWAHHH

Re: and another question
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2007, 08:02:39 PM »
ok i am confused even more now....  :'(


I was just joking!   :)


*hug*


Eveman was right about the giraffes.


it's aight ... Pitt is forgiven despite dumping Jen

Re: and another question
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2007, 08:05:50 PM »
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

I found this argument to be legit. but the question says it is flawed.
Can someone diagram this for me? and tell me why
"all the primates in the zoo were gorillas. the only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only prmates in the zoo were small primates." is correct?


Let me give another parallel statement:

The only people in the nursery were babies, but they were large babies.  Therefore, the only people in the nursery were large people.  

Can you see why this is flawed?  As others have noted, the terms "large" and "small" mean different things in different contexts, or when referring to different subsets within a larger set.

Here's another example:  The only fish in the pond were minnows.  However, they were large minnows. Therefore, the only fish in the pond were large fish.  

Just because minnows are large compared to other minnows doesn't mean they're large in comparison to fish generally.  

(Minnows, of course, are very small fish.  Even the big minnows.)

The same thing applies to tulips/plants, and primates/gorillas.  

ohhh thank you!! wow this is such a duhhh question; i can't believe i didn't get it  :D