ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 12895|回复: 1
打印 上一主题 下一主题

LSAT-16-3-19

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-12-23 14:08:00 | 显示全部楼层

LSAT-16-3-19

19.   Thomas: The club president had no right to disallow Jeffrey’s vote. (1 )Club rules say that only members in good standing may vote. You’ve admitted that club rules also say that (2)all members whose dues are fully paid are members in good standing. And since, as the records indicate, Jeffrey has always paid his dues on time, clearly the president acted in violation of club rules.


Althea: By that reasoning my two-year-old niece can legally vote in next month’s national election since she is a citizen of this country, and only citizens can legally vote in national elections.


The reasoning in Thomas’ argument is flawed because his argument



(A) fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited and its being authorized


(B) offers evidence that casts doubt on the character of the club president and thereby ignores the question of voting eligibility


(C) wrongly assumes that if a statement is not actually denied by someone, that statement must be regarded as true


(D) does not specify the issue with respect to which the disputed vote was castA


(E) overlooks the possibility that Althea is not an authority on the club’s rules



What's the reasoning line? I don't get the answer. Is mine correct?



1.vote -----members in good standing


2.fully paid due------members in good standing


Jeffrey paid his due on time


president had no tight to disallow J's vote




[此贴子已经被作者于2005-1-1 5:34:43编辑过]
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2004-12-24 00:17:00 | 显示全部楼层

I understand  neg A --------neg B doesn't mean A-----B

But would you please explain more specifically that which premise goes wrong?

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

所属分类: 法学院申请

近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-5-3 10:28
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部