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?
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?
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
76 comments
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?
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.
I get it but it’s lowkey frying me.
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?
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?
when do I get support? i need me a premise hml
The premise is the basis on which the conclusion is established.
Premise supports a conclusion, solid premises strongly support the conclusion
Premise supports, conclusion is supported.
premises support the conclusion, and on the lsat you don't typically debate the premises, but rather the validity of the conclusion.
without a solid premise, or multiple, the conclusion is weak and therefore easily picked apart.
Reading the comments of those who came before helps. To understand this, I am going to make an example.
Premise = i am going to make an example
Conclusion = to understand this
An argument can incorporate a major premise or sub-conclusion.
- Premise supports the [main] conclusion or sub-conclusion
- [Main] Concl. receives support from premise or sub-concl.
- Sub-concl. is an intermediate concl. and a premise for the main concl.
Excited to be taking this journey
Nice!