A premise is a claim that supports another claim. The other claim is the conclusion. The premise gives support and the conclusion recieves the support. Did i say that right?
@Bayan06 personally in my lsat journey, writing notes doesn't help much. The more practice the better. They won't test you on what you know but how you solve the problem and how many you get right.
Doing this for my own personal sake. Support is what the LSAT is based mostly on, the claim that is supporting another claim is the premise, and the claim that is being supported is the argument.
Can someone help clarify this for me? So, essentially what I am hearing is that all arguments tie back to the premise and in order to understand the premise you have to understand the supporting cause?
@stevensari the premise is an element of the argument that supports the conclusion. The premise is the supporting element for the conclusion, and those two together are enough to create an argument .
some premises are 'sub-conclusions' in that they are supported by other premises, and at the same time support the main conclusion (perhaps other sub-premises)
if its hard to determine the structure of the argument, you can narrow things down by considering:
the main conclusion wont support anything else. at the same time, it must have at least 1 premise
a premise will be supporting something else. and thus, it won't just be background info
if there is no supporting going on, you have merely a list of facts in your passage
Okay so I think I'm probably thinking about this weirdly. But I liken this lesson on arguments to science. In that, the premise is an independent variable to your argument (or experiment) while your conclusion is the dependent variable that cannot occur without the independent variable. The dependent variable can change of course depending on your independent variable. But it cannot be different. For the dependent variable to occur you NEED the independent variable if that makes any sense. I hope I'm not thinking of this wrong lol.
Can you have a premise and a premise relate to each other? Or embedded premise/conclusion for two arguments? EG, premise -> (conclusion & premise) -> conclusion?
@Metroidude If I understand your question correctly what you are talking about is an intermediate conclusion. In this situation you have a premise which supports another premise which supports the main conclusion. It is like having a mini argument stuck in the middle of a larger argument. What this can look like is:
P1: The sky is full of dark clouds today.
P2: According to my brother, if the sky is full of dark clouds then it will rain.
P3:Anytime it rains then there is a chance of thunder and lightning that day.
IC: There will be a chance of thunder and lightning today.
P4: Anytime there is a chance of thunder and lightning our dog will hide under the bed.
C: The dog will hide under the bed today.
P1-P3 are building the groundwork for why you should believe (providing support for) the Intermediate conclusion.
The intermediate conclusion (which has the combined support of P1-P3) and the use of P4 are being used to support the arguments overall conclusion (dog will hide). Intermediate conclusions are a fancy term to mean premise that both gives support and receives support.
If you are wondering if something is supported by another item you can take that item alone and think "why should I believe this?" if another part of the argument answers that question then it is providing support to the thing you picked.
Now in reality this argument has stronger logical support than it has persuasiveness. The argument structure is built up enough that there is no remaining doubt in the logical support. As far as how persuasive the argument is there is a lot more doubt. If my brother were the best, most all knowing weatherman in the world, maybe we should believe him, but if he failed every science class he took and is just winging it then his ability to persuade anyone would dwindle to nothing.
I don't know if you have completed your studies but hopefully this explanation may help someone.
I'm confused about our application of the definition of "support".
We said A supports B iff A increases the likelihood of B. But in probability theory, this relation is always symmetric: if A supports B, then B supports A (by the same ratio, according to Bayes' theorem).
In the tiger example, the conclusion does actually support the premise: to see this, note that if all mammals were suitable pets, it would be pretty unlikely for tigers to be maiming humans.
So I'm wondering how to reconcile this with the directional arrows between premise and conclusion, the different words used, etc.
Can someone explain the baseball analogy in hockey terms? Also, since the premise is the evidence, we always accept it as the truth, right? It's the conclusion that may not be correct as it could make an assumption that isnt supported by the premise or evidence given. Is that correct?
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
86 comments
Conclusion is the belief, while premise is the evidence for that belief
A premise is a claim that supports another claim. The other claim is the conclusion. The premise gives support and the conclusion recieves the support. Did i say that right?
Does anyone recommend writing notes or will that just distract me more? Is there no point in that?
@Bayan06 personally in my lsat journey, writing notes doesn't help much. The more practice the better. They won't test you on what you know but how you solve the problem and how many you get right.
Am I right in thinking that the premise can neither be weak or strong? It depends on the conclusion to determine strength or argument?
@emergencyrhino Correct me if I am wrong but I think it works in opposite. As in the strength of the conclusion is relied on the premise.
Doing this for my own personal sake. Support is what the LSAT is based mostly on, the claim that is supporting another claim is the premise, and the claim that is being supported is the argument.
Can someone help clarify this for me? So, essentially what I am hearing is that all arguments tie back to the premise and in order to understand the premise you have to understand the supporting cause?
@stevensari the premise is the support, so yeah. Understanding what the premise is would be understanding the support.
@stevensari the premise is an element of the argument that supports the conclusion. The premise is the supporting element for the conclusion, and those two together are enough to create an argument .
@stevensari Premise is WHY they want you to believe it. Conclusion is WHAT they want you to believe.
@BrandonChavez This is such a good way to explain it wow!
@BrandonChavez i like how you put this very easy to remember concept
once this clicks it is so easy! The claim that supports another claim is always the premise supporting the conclusion
I think that the connection to the baseball idea is a great representation
I think I understand that the support is the baseball and I am the pitcher!
I get this, but sub-conclusions confuse me at the moment!
main conclusion also supports nothing else.
some premises are 'sub-conclusions' in that they are supported by other premises, and at the same time support the main conclusion (perhaps other sub-premises)
if its hard to determine the structure of the argument, you can narrow things down by considering:
the main conclusion wont support anything else. at the same time, it must have at least 1 premise
a premise will be supporting something else. and thus, it won't just be background info
if there is no supporting going on, you have merely a list of facts in your passage
Okay so I think I'm probably thinking about this weirdly. But I liken this lesson on arguments to science. In that, the premise is an independent variable to your argument (or experiment) while your conclusion is the dependent variable that cannot occur without the independent variable. The dependent variable can change of course depending on your independent variable. But it cannot be different. For the dependent variable to occur you NEED the independent variable if that makes any sense. I hope I'm not thinking of this wrong lol.
@MSharon10 Great comparison. As a heath science undergrad, I appreciate you bringing a little science into this lesson.
@MSharon10 that's a really interesting way of looking at it!
I get it but it’s lowkey frying me.
@HiGigi i agree
So I'm trying to see if I got it right?
Premise=thrower
Support= Ball
Conclusion=catcher
So the thrower has to have the ball in good condition to throw it to the catcher- resulting in the summary of that throw.
https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk I'm taking the November test. If you want a study group/make friends in a similar boat, feel free to join!
Can you have a premise and a premise relate to each other? Or embedded premise/conclusion for two arguments? EG, premise -> (conclusion & premise) -> conclusion?
@Metroidude If I understand your question correctly what you are talking about is an intermediate conclusion. In this situation you have a premise which supports another premise which supports the main conclusion. It is like having a mini argument stuck in the middle of a larger argument. What this can look like is:
P1: The sky is full of dark clouds today.
P2: According to my brother, if the sky is full of dark clouds then it will rain.
P3:Anytime it rains then there is a chance of thunder and lightning that day.
IC: There will be a chance of thunder and lightning today.
P4: Anytime there is a chance of thunder and lightning our dog will hide under the bed.
C: The dog will hide under the bed today.
P1-P3 are building the groundwork for why you should believe (providing support for) the Intermediate conclusion.
The intermediate conclusion (which has the combined support of P1-P3) and the use of P4 are being used to support the arguments overall conclusion (dog will hide). Intermediate conclusions are a fancy term to mean premise that both gives support and receives support.
If you are wondering if something is supported by another item you can take that item alone and think "why should I believe this?" if another part of the argument answers that question then it is providing support to the thing you picked.
Now in reality this argument has stronger logical support than it has persuasiveness. The argument structure is built up enough that there is no remaining doubt in the logical support. As far as how persuasive the argument is there is a lot more doubt. If my brother were the best, most all knowing weatherman in the world, maybe we should believe him, but if he failed every science class he took and is just winging it then his ability to persuade anyone would dwindle to nothing.
I don't know if you have completed your studies but hopefully this explanation may help someone.
I'm confused about our application of the definition of "support".
We said A supports B iff A increases the likelihood of B. But in probability theory, this relation is always symmetric: if A supports B, then B supports A (by the same ratio, according to Bayes' theorem).
In the tiger example, the conclusion does actually support the premise: to see this, note that if all mammals were suitable pets, it would be pretty unlikely for tigers to be maiming humans.
So I'm wondering how to reconcile this with the directional arrows between premise and conclusion, the different words used, etc.
Pitcher (throw the support) = Premise.
Catcher (receive the support) = Conclusion.
Am I on the right track?
Can someone explain the baseball analogy in hockey terms? Also, since the premise is the evidence, we always accept it as the truth, right? It's the conclusion that may not be correct as it could make an assumption that isnt supported by the premise or evidence given. Is that correct?
premise is setting up for the conclusion to be supported
Is premise the same as evidence?
@lilacsunrise0526 to my understanding yes
@lilacsunrise0526 yes it's used interchangeably based on my experience studying with lawhub
when do I get support? i need me a premise hml
The premise is the basis on which the conclusion is established.
@owolabi.adesoye This was perfect.
Premise supports a conclusion, solid premises strongly support the conclusion
Premise supports, conclusion is supported.