I had a hard time with this question and I'm curious to know why E is incorrect while A is correct?
Is A correct because of the statement that "but this cannot be so.." concerning how extremist view usage of language?
I tried to diagram parts of the premise:
UL=Use of language
P1) UL M
P2) NL L
C: UL M
#8- A metaphor is the application of a word or phrase to
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
"Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to get through this thing called life."~ Prince
You have the conclusion properly diagrammed, and answer choice "A" simply restates what you have diagrammed
UL ---> ~M (i do not know how to make a line through the letter and so i use the traditional ~ to represent "not") reads "the use of language is not Metaphorical", or at least not all use of language is metaphorical.
Answer choice "E" contains a bunch of extraneous information about fixing word meanings and conventions that are not covered in the stimulus and therefore cannot be an accurate expression of the conclusion.
I hope this helps.
I was between A and C for this one and I ended up choosing C.
The reason was that in the conclusion "unless some uses of words are literal, there can be no nonliteral uses of any words." I diagrammed this as [if... nonliteral use of words -> then... some uses of words are literal] which I understood to be: Metaphor -> Use Literal
Can anyone explain where I made my mistake?
Thanks in advance!
Anything for Iron Man, Tony! This argument is a classic example of a "some people say X, but they're wrong, and here's why" argument, wherein the conclusion is almost always "they are wrong". In this case, the thing some people say is that all language is metaphorical; the "they're wrong" part is the conclusion, captured in the phrase "this cannot be so"; the "here's why is the part that you identified as the conclusion, that conditional claim about there being no metaphors unless there is something else that is literal. That is a premise, not a conclusion, because it supports the claim that those other folks are wrong! Main conclusions don't give support, but they are selfish and take it all while giving none.
Watch for this common pattern on the LSAT, and you will see it everywhere, including in many Reading Comp passages.
Some people say = the thing the argument is designed to discredit
They are wrong = the main point
Here's why = the premises in support of the claim that those people are wrong
BTW, a conditional phrase is not, by itself, necessarily a conclusion! A conditional phrase can, and frequently is, a premise, like in this case:
All dogs are mammals, my pet Rover is a dog, so Rover must be a mammal
The conditional claim of IF Dog...THEN Mammal is a premise that supports my conclusion about Rover.
Watch for that common pattern, and don't fall into the habit of thinking that something conditional must be a conclusion.
Good luck, and keep on fighting the good fight! (Oh, and I am Team Cap all the way - sorry).
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
4 posts • Page 1 of 1