Is this similar to Question 27 (I think)
Started by
Arthur-Guerra
· started 2019-11-24 23:07
· last activity 2019-11-25 22:33
· 1 reply
In question 27 there was an "overreaching" principle, that is written in the paragraph, but is not supposed to be used in any S==>N
Is this the same for the first sentence for this question:
"Anatomical bilateral symmetry"
-
SamA
· 2019-11-25 22:33
Hello @Arthur-Guerra,
In the future, please include the test number and section so that we can find the question you are referring to. On the message board, we are only able to see the question that is linked to your comment. Thanks!
In this case, I was able to figure out that this is from PT 21. However, I wasn't able to see Question 27, most LR sections contain either 25 or 26 questions. Let me know which question you are referring to and I'll come back to this thread.
For this question, I can tell you that I would include that first sentence as a sufficient condition. I'll demonstrate.
Premise: If bilateral symmetry did not confer survival advantages (not CSA), it would not be common (not C).
not CSA - - - - - - - - - -> not C
Premise: Anatomical bilateral symmetry is common (C).*
Conclusion: Anatomical bilateral symmetry confers survival advantages (CSA).
C - - - - - - - - -> CSA
*The first sentence is not a principle, but rather a piece of information that leads to the conclusion.
Sign in to reply.