Great. I want to discuss more of the process of realizing the conclusion/evidence.

I think the process you recommend is correct and efficient. When the argument is simple, nothing need discussion. When the argument is complex your process is efficient. the following is the reason.

However complex argument is, the argument must contain a simple conclusion which is one sentence containing idea. The complex of evidence makes the argument complex. But when we realize the conclusion,we can understand/realize the complex evidence quickly.

Manhantant experts used to advise us not to bogged down to the detail when doing bold phrase question which is tipical of complex argument.

I think we find out a way to revolutionize the reading argument and also RC passages.

pls, comment.

I was asked this question."If all religions teach peace then why can't all religions achieve peace?" I replied that this is an incorrect question. Asker told me he did not understand, so I made this reply: The question posted is: "if" that is the first indication we may be dealing not with a realikty here but with a supposition, and it continues..."If all religions" we stop again because now we know this is a question posed as a hyperthetical. at this point the red flag is automatically raised as to what is the intention of the asker. we read on to see if the intention is revealed. "If all religions teach peace" this si about as loaded of an incorrect question as one will ever see. without even seeing the remainder, we already see the intention is going to be anti religion. it is assuming that the questioner has investigated all religions, (perhaps he/she is thinkjing that by assuming the major religions, without reading and studying them, are representative of all that the earth offers, all are teaching peace, and that this peace is understandable by the asker, therefore it is determined that the peace is something outwardly observeable, that 'all religions are teaching world peace with every other ????person???country???nationality???? I don't know if there is a need for me to destroy this any further, but then I see you have a personal reflection that "in the main, religions are peaceful in name and hurtful in practice" wow" I stopped here, and am awaiting to see if he understands at this point. I would like to know if someone has a thought.

ray - is this a GMAT question or an LSAT question?

Or are you talking about logic in general?

David, I don't know how to answer that one I am afraid. Is the question did I see this posed in one of those areas? Well, no, actually I came here this morning just trying to find some feedback because of this question that I have shown that appeared on facebook posting by an old old friend from grade school. I had been trying to show him that the question itself was just not right, etc, but could not seem to get my point across, and thought that maybe being a pastor I was too close and perhaps there was somewhere to get better reflection. If I have incorrectly done this I apologize and will gladly remove the post.

I am certainly not the one who gets to say what goes and what does not. I did not say you were incorrect.

I just thought we could use some context as to what the discussion is about.