59 LR Two Question 19
- « 59 LR Two Question 18
- 1875 of 3815
- 59 LR Two Question 20 »
- You must Log in or Sign Up to post comments
Yeah, it's confusing and reprehensible behavior from LSAC!
But notice that we've got nested conditionals here (IT'S LIKE INCEPTION):
IF thing one [understanding → knowing the definition], THEN thing two [understanding → knowing the words]
So we don't really know that Thing One is true; we just know that if it were true, then Thing Two would also be true.
Consider this example:
If trees grew money instead of leaves, then anyone who could reach the branches (including all adults) would be rich.
Does this mean that anyone who can reach the branches of a tree is rich? Of course it doesn't; in this instance, the sufficient condition (trees growing money) just isn't true.
Same here. If understanding really did require knowing the definition, then yes, (A) would necessarily be true.
But we do not know that understanding actually requires knowing definitions. So we don't know for sure what these babies know.