lsat-6-2-5

danggichen · 发表于 2005-4-8 13:50:00

是啊，没想到那么专业啊，还好有专业人士在啊：）

shuangyuym · 发表于 2005-4-9 00:36:00

啊，终于懂了，不愧是专业人士啊～～～谢谢

xjlv128 · 发表于 2006-4-14 16:23:00

以下是引用lawyer_1在2005-4-8 9:37:00的发言：

实际这题是典型的法律思维错误。看来LSAT是为培养律师准备的。

啊……

不过凭感觉蒙对了。那这题就放过去吧

jieyulike · 发表于 2006-5-22 20:51:00

本题的错误在于诉诸权威，即保安：）

ssssss · 发表于 2007-4-20 06:02:00

right

micsunnyfish · 发表于 2007-4-20 21:54:00

呵呵，小弟倒觉得问题在于：say不代表事实上就是。就如同B选项，claim不代表就真是这样。

ssssss · 发表于 2007-4-26 06:44:00

The logical flaw is that weather the museum's night security guard is worth to trust. In the stimulus, out conclusion is directly draw from museum's night security guard. What if the guard did not provide the information or he lie about it.

You can find the same logical flaw in answer B. Is the store's competitors telling the right thing? Probability not since they have conflict of interest.

lsat-6-2-5

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()