Student Rights Coalition

This topic has expert replies
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm
Thanked: 331 times
Followed by:11 members

by cramya » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:30 pm
I think the assumption is all those who signed are part of student coalition group.

If that assumption is negated then the flaw gets revealed which choice E does IMO


Some of the people who signed may not be part of student coalition.the flaw that all member signed and philip signed therefroe philip is a member logical deduction is weakened.

Regards,
CR

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:40 am
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:1 members

by Vemuri » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:27 pm
cramya wrote:I think the assumption is all those who signed are part of student coalition group.

If that assumption is negated then the flaw gets revealed which choice E does IMO


Some of the people who signed may not be part of student coalition.the flaw that all member signed and philip signed therefroe philip is a member logical deduction is weakened.

Regards,
CR
Cool explanation Cramya. Where have you been? :)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:41 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:2 members

by anshulseth » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:35 pm
It falls under the category of "Alternatives" for CR, going by Kaplan 800, segregation for CR topics.
Right answer is thus E.
Asset

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:56 pm
Why is C incorrect, it is possible that Philip resigned after signing the petition so he is technically not a member anymore.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 am

by kris77 » Fri May 13, 2016 10:40 pm
Option E looks good than other answers.