One of my favorite exercises to do when dissecting the support relationship of an argument is to take a statement and ask myself “why should I believe this?” If I can appropriately answer this question, then I know it is the conclusion! The answer is the premise. If I can’t answer the question “why should I believe this?” then I know it is the premise. For example, let’s say we argue that:
Because they purr, cats have the ability to communicate with humans.
Let’s take the statement by itself “cats have the ability to communicate with humans,” do we have the ability to answer the question: why should I believe this? Yes! The answer is that they purr. Therefore, it is the conclusion that cats have the ability to communicate.
However, if I take the statement “cats purr” by itself, can we answer that question? No! Therefore, it is the premise.
I find the baseball analogy useful, a way that I made it work is by referring to the argument as the baseball game itself, along with the pitcher and catcher analogies.
I.e. there is no baseball game if there are no pitchers, and likewise if there is no one to catch!
You need both for a game to go ahead, just as you would need both the premise and the conclusion to have yourself an argument.
For people that like to visualise things in that way, that might help!
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.
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
This sort of reminds me of Hegel's dialectic (shoutout to fellow philosophy majors).
The premise and the conclusion are mutually supporting and have a two-way relationship. The one is found in the other, and neither can exist without the other; in a similar sense, Hegel's thesis and antithesis mutually support one another and cannot exist without the other (despite being contradictory, though in this case the premise and conclusion are not contradictory).
@BLaw6 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 please confirm that I have this right? An argument is then a combination of a conclusion and premise, and the conclusion is the statement of the argument that is supported by the premise, which is the evidence supporting the conclusion. Yes?
108 comments
im cooked
Funniest comment I've read
real
LMAOOO
ya that's your conclusion what's your premise homie
I see no premise to support this conclusion my friend.
You got this
There you go! You're gonna kill LSAT!
perioddd!
that was sweet :)
real pt 2
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.
Premise:
“It rained all night.”
Conclusion:
“The streets are wet.”
Why?
Because the rain is the SUPPORT for why the streets are wet.
The LSAT constantly asks:
That is the heart of Logical Reasoning.
@Araceli Love that
One of my favorite exercises to do when dissecting the support relationship of an argument is to take a statement and ask myself “why should I believe this?” If I can appropriately answer this question, then I know it is the conclusion! The answer is the premise. If I can’t answer the question “why should I believe this?” then I know it is the premise. For example, let’s say we argue that:
Because they purr, cats have the ability to communicate with humans.
Let’s take the statement by itself “cats have the ability to communicate with humans,” do we have the ability to answer the question: why should I believe this? Yes! The answer is that they purr. Therefore, it is the conclusion that cats have the ability to communicate.
However, if I take the statement “cats purr” by itself, can we answer that question? No! Therefore, it is the premise.
This was very helpful ty
I find the baseball analogy useful, a way that I made it work is by referring to the argument as the baseball game itself, along with the pitcher and catcher analogies.
I.e. there is no baseball game if there are no pitchers, and likewise if there is no one to catch!
You need both for a game to go ahead, just as you would need both the premise and the conclusion to have yourself an argument.
For people that like to visualise things in that way, that might help!
Conclusion is the belief, while premise is the evidence for that belief
I get it but it’s lowkey frying me.
@HiGigi i agree
Pitcher (throw the support) = Premise.
Catcher (receive the support) = Conclusion.
Am I on the right track?
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.
once this clicks it is so easy! The claim that supports another claim is always the premise supporting the conclusion
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
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!
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
Premise supports, conclusion is supported.
This sort of reminds me of Hegel's dialectic (shoutout to fellow philosophy majors).
The premise and the conclusion are mutually supporting and have a two-way relationship. The one is found in the other, and neither can exist without the other; in a similar sense, Hegel's thesis and antithesis mutually support one another and cannot exist without the other (despite being contradictory, though in this case the premise and conclusion are not contradictory).
I think that the connection to the baseball idea is a great representation
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.
Excited to be taking this journey
Hi, I have just begun my LSAT journey and was on the other version. I have to say, this version is succinct and clearer! Amazing job so far!!
Does anyone recommend writing notes or will that just distract me more? Is there no point in that?
@BLaw6 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.
@BLaw6 i only write down definitions...that helps them stick to my head. Apart from that, drill drill drill.
Only if i could see Ohtani throw support for the Blue Jays. Lol. Great going so far
Bad news for you...
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.
@BryanAliCastanedaHernandez The claim being supported is the conclusion yes?
Can someone please confirm that I have this right? An argument is then a combination of a conclusion and premise, and the conclusion is the statement of the argument that is supported by the premise, which is the evidence supporting the conclusion. Yes?
You got it !
I am new to this version, does anyone else feel like this is explained much better!?
YES!!!