Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: how is this even a flaw!?!  (Read 858 times)

motorolalawyer

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
how is this even a flaw!?!
« on: November 06, 2007, 10:13:29 PM »
paraphrased:

The store's security guard maintains that the theieves who broke in did not enter at any point at or above ground level. Therefore, the thieves must have gained access to the store from below ground level.

Q.stem: what is the flaw?

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2007, 10:15:34 PM »
Relying on the security guard's statement rather than hard evidence.

Pop Up Video

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7275
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2007, 10:15:49 PM »
What if the security guard is wrong?

cls 2l taking question

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2007, 10:18:14 PM »
Ignores that they may have beamed down from the NCC-1701E.

 :)

(oh, right; relying on a source with undetermined credibility.  How does the security guard know that they didn't enter at or above ground level?)

shouldn't you be studying?

River

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2007, 10:24:21 PM »
"Not enter at any point or above ground level" does not necessarily indicates "below ground level."  This is faulty reasoning.  What if the thief was inside?

cls 2l taking question

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2007, 10:26:16 PM »

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2007, 11:57:28 PM »
"Not enter at any point at or above ground level" does not necessarily indicates "below ground level."  This is faulty reasoning.  What if the thief was inside?

What, did they build the building around him?

studymaster

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2007, 12:13:39 AM »
The store's security guard maintains that the theieves who broke in did not enter at any point at or above ground level. Therefore, the thieves must have gained access to the store from below ground level.

Q.stem: what is the flaw?
-----------------------------------------
Oh I get a thousand million points for being the first person to sovle this, after numerous nonsense responses


the flaw is that gained access and entered arent equivalent.

They might have gained access when they cut the bolt on the fence aroudn the store, then went down a staircase and entered the place from belwo groudn level.

Thus they gained acess at ground level. ZING! HUZZAH! I win..
It is whispered that soon, if we all heed the call, the piper will lead us to reason.

. . . . . .

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2327
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2007, 12:18:25 AM »
Can you post the PT and Question number so we can go look at this one ourselves. I think the paraphrase may be missing something.

ě

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2007, 12:08:26 PM »
There is definitely something missing here, and I don't buy studymaster's explanation either. PT and Q number please.