The example of "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" is interesting because it shows that a conclusion doesn't always have to come after a premise.
Even though the order is reversed, this example still has a clear premise and conclusion, making it a valid argument. Each sentence can stand alone, but when combined, they form a stronger argument. Saying "Not every mammal can be a pet" on its own sounds like an unsupported claim. And saying "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" on its own seems like a random fact. But together, they create a clear and persuasive argument.
My brain read the argument like this: (conclusion) Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, (premise) because tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. Premise = Why? Explanation. Conclusion = Statement. This.
@OmarAbuaita That was a great breakdown, that helped me understand the concept so much easier. The premise will explain "why" a certain "statement" is being made
@OmarAbuaita I did as well at first, but I am also reading the book The Loophole and it taught me to look at conclusion indicators...GAME CHANGER!!!!!!!!
Conclusion: "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." Big overarching statement, supported by the claim below.
Premise: "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people". This claim increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true. If tigers were not agressive, than the conclusion would not increase the liklihood of truth.
So is this the answer? ;-; Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. Premise: After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
For anyone struggling with supporting claims I recommend taking a University level logic class. The definition drilled into your head follows:
"If and only if the premise(s) are true, then the conclusion must also be true."
For example:
If Opus is a penguin, then Opus is a bird.
Opus is a bird, therefore Opus must be a penguin.
The argument above is considered invalid as the premise does not sufficiently support the claim. The premise supports that Penguins are birds, but not that birds are always penguins.
An example of a sufficiently supporting argument is as follows:
If X is a penguin, then X is a bird.
Opus is a Penguin; therefore, Opus is a Bird.
The difference between the two of these arguments is that the premise of the second argument sufficiently supports the conclusion. If Opus is a Penguin then Opus is a bird, Since Opus is a Penguin, it logically follows that Opus is a bird. The first argument fails to justify the conclusion through the support of the premise.
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Premises: tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Conclusion: not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Therefore, the claim (premises) that tigers are aggressive and can injury people, supports the claim (conclusion) that not all mammals are suitable pets.
@cmata I thought it was the other way around, premise being not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, which in turn supports the conclusion that tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Tigers are aggressive (Premise) →Supports → That not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet (Conclusion)
Because Tigers are aggressive, they are not suitable to be a pet.
Like it says above: "Support means increases likelihood of truth". Aggressive Tigers supports the argument that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
I was wondering, how are you all taking notes, if you're taking any? I am writing them out on my iPad as if I was in a lecture. Focusing on definitions, and examples and reviewing it all after I am done.
@DeborahAdel I do best by handwriting all my notes! Every chapter is a different color and I use corresponding pen/markers to differentiate examples, definitions, important ideas :)
By substituting the given defintion of support in the context of the definition of an argument. We can reword the definition of an argument to say:
In an argument the presmise(s) increase(s) the likelihood of the conclusion being true.
Now let apply this to the example given.
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Valid take, although I would still personally love a pet tiger. What's the premise and conclusion in the statement above?
At first glance its very easy to label the first statement as the presmise simply because it comes first, but alas, that would be incorrect. In this case, the first statement is actually the conclusion.
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Premise: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
How did I label these? Well going by the definiton of support given in this module, I simply asked "Which claim better increases the likelihood of the other being true?" After holding both claims in the light of the LSAT definition of support, we have our clear winners.
In a world where "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" is true, it increases the likelihood that concluding "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." is also true.
When we try to flip the statements, it just doesn't make sense because one insufficiently supports the other.
Think, a world where, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." doesn't necessarily increase the likelehood that ""Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people"
Does this make sense?? Cause tigers can be aggressive & cause injuries for a whole host of reasons that has nothing to do with them making bad pets (like yknow, the systematic destruction of their homelands through deforestation & bad faith hunting)
Hope this yap session made sense! It was mostly for me to learn through teaching but I hope it helped someone else out too lol.
@SarahShaver I would say the conclusion, as I read it, is my dog barks loudly. Because in my head, there are sooo many other reasons why he could be barking while taking a bath. Maybe he is scared...maybe he really likes it and barking is his way of letting you know, maybe the water temp is off etc.
@Sameer_Ahamad I would even see this as two premises!
1) Tigers are very aggressive, and
2) can cause serious injuries to people
Both of which support the claim that not every mammal is suitable as a pet. Because we're trying to prove a "not" statement, we only have to find one scenario where it is untrue (tigers) in order to prove the whole claim as "not" true! This is a very strong logical conclusion in math, and is exactly how you would go about it in a proof.
I went to the next lesson and saw that he answered the tiger example, so I deleted my paragraph of frustration for him starting an example and not finishing it. My bad!!
The critical thing here is to relate (no pun intended) this back to the aim of an argument. To persuade. EVERYTHING in the argument is directed in doing this. How does this help with understanding the idea of support?
Let’s break down persuasion further. The 3 pillars (these are devices of support) of persuasive arguments that Aristotle (ironically, I am currently using ethos) gives us is the appeals:
Ehtos (credibility)
Pathos ( emotion)
Logos (logic)
Funnily enough, these are called pillars, think of these devices of support that act as pillars to hold up a persuasive arguments. If you were to take away a pillar (take away support), the argument falls down.
On the LSAT, we attempt to remain the realm of logos, reasoning.
Interestingly, I feel that this example of tigers as pets has the conclusion come before the premise; I identified, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet," as the conclusion of the argument with the evidence being, "... tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries..." Did you interpret this the same way? Am I way off base? Are we both way off base meaning tigers are actually incredible pets?
@madeinkeaven you're very right! Something I've learned studying for the LSAT is that conclusions can be found ANYWHERE in the argument-- at the beginning, middle, or end. It's matter of using tools like keywords and logical flow of information to identify what supports what and/or what is supported by what.
I appreciate the differentiation between "an argument" and a "good argument". The structure itself simply means I am dealing with an argument at all. If the content matters, I can then dive in and assess the content in its own right.
111 comments
So...
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet = conclusion
After all, tigers are very aggressive = p1
and (tigers) can cause serious injuries to people = p2
@hannahpark14930 Right!? They never answered the original question... Just rambled. The answer is- Yes. This is an argument supported by P+C. sheesh.
The example of "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" is interesting because it shows that a conclusion doesn't always have to come after a premise.
Even though the order is reversed, this example still has a clear premise and conclusion, making it a valid argument. Each sentence can stand alone, but when combined, they form a stronger argument. Saying "Not every mammal can be a pet" on its own sounds like an unsupported claim. And saying "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" on its own seems like a random fact. But together, they create a clear and persuasive argument.
My brain read the argument like this: (conclusion) Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, (premise) because tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. Premise = Why? Explanation. Conclusion = Statement. This.
@OmarAbuaita I agree
@OmarAbuaita That was a great breakdown, that helped me understand the concept so much easier. The premise will explain "why" a certain "statement" is being made
@OmarAbuaita I did as well at first, but I am also reading the book The Loophole and it taught me to look at conclusion indicators...GAME CHANGER!!!!!!!!
Premise: A claim supporting another claim
“Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.”
Conclusion: A claim supported by another claim
“Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.”
My understanding:
Conclusion: "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." Big overarching statement, supported by the claim below.
Premise: "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people". This claim increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true. If tigers were not agressive, than the conclusion would not increase the liklihood of truth.
Agreed! I liked how you worded it as 'the claim increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true.' Noted!
So is this the answer? ;-; Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. Premise: After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
One does not simply walk into LSAT test prep knowing truth, support, premise and conclusion.
For anyone struggling with supporting claims I recommend taking a University level logic class. The definition drilled into your head follows:
"If and only if the premise(s) are true, then the conclusion must also be true."
For example:
If Opus is a penguin, then Opus is a bird.
Opus is a bird, therefore Opus must be a penguin.
The argument above is considered invalid as the premise does not sufficiently support the claim. The premise supports that Penguins are birds, but not that birds are always penguins.
An example of a sufficiently supporting argument is as follows:
If X is a penguin, then X is a bird.
Opus is a Penguin; therefore, Opus is a Bird.
The difference between the two of these arguments is that the premise of the second argument sufficiently supports the conclusion. If Opus is a Penguin then Opus is a bird, Since Opus is a Penguin, it logically follows that Opus is a bird. The first argument fails to justify the conclusion through the support of the premise.
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Premises: tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Conclusion: not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Therefore, the claim (premises) that tigers are aggressive and can injury people, supports the claim (conclusion) that not all mammals are suitable pets.
@cmata I thought it was the other way around, premise being not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, which in turn supports the conclusion that tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
@HannahVelasco ummmm the only reason it talks abt tigers is cause it supports the fact the not all mammals make good pets
At least I think that's right
premise: tigers are very aggressive
supports
conclusion: not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet
correct?
I would agree.
Tigers are aggressive (Premise) →Supports → That not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet (Conclusion)
Because Tigers are aggressive, they are not suitable to be a pet.
Like it says above: "Support means increases likelihood of truth". Aggressive Tigers supports the argument that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
"After all" generally signifies the premise of an argument. Quick way to identify.
I was wondering, how are you all taking notes, if you're taking any? I am writing them out on my iPad as if I was in a lecture. Focusing on definitions, and examples and reviewing it all after I am done.
@DeborahAdel I am doing the same!
@DeborahAdel using MS OneNote!
@DeborahAdel I do best by handwriting all my notes! Every chapter is a different color and I use corresponding pen/markers to differentiate examples, definitions, important ideas :)
I am enjoying the way you break things down for us.
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. It is supported by the following statement.
Premise: After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. Supporting claim.
By substituting the given defintion of support in the context of the definition of an argument. We can reword the definition of an argument to say:
In an argument the presmise(s) increase(s) the likelihood of the conclusion being true.
Now let apply this to the example given.
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Valid take, although I would still personally love a pet tiger. What's the premise and conclusion in the statement above?
At first glance its very easy to label the first statement as the presmise simply because it comes first, but alas, that would be incorrect. In this case, the first statement is actually the conclusion.
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Premise: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
How did I label these? Well going by the definiton of support given in this module, I simply asked "Which claim better increases the likelihood of the other being true?" After holding both claims in the light of the LSAT definition of support, we have our clear winners.
In a world where "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" is true, it increases the likelihood that concluding "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." is also true.
When we try to flip the statements, it just doesn't make sense because one insufficiently supports the other.
Think, a world where, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." doesn't necessarily increase the likelehood that ""Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people"
Does this make sense?? Cause tigers can be aggressive & cause injuries for a whole host of reasons that has nothing to do with them making bad pets (like yknow, the systematic destruction of their homelands through deforestation & bad faith hunting)
Hope this yap session made sense! It was mostly for me to learn through teaching but I hope it helped someone else out too lol.
@DurodoluwaAina this was a great breakdown, thank you :)
wait so, this IS an argument. right? lol
premise : my dog barks loudly when I give him a bath conclusion : my dog does not like baths. Is this correct?
@SarahShaver I would say the conclusion, as I read it, is my dog barks loudly. Because in my head, there are sooo many other reasons why he could be barking while taking a bath. Maybe he is scared...maybe he really likes it and barking is his way of letting you know, maybe the water temp is off etc.
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet is the conclusion.
After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people is the premise.
The premise supports the claim that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
@Sameer_Ahamad I would even see this as two premises!
1) Tigers are very aggressive, and
2) can cause serious injuries to people
Both of which support the claim that not every mammal is suitable as a pet. Because we're trying to prove a "not" statement, we only have to find one scenario where it is untrue (tigers) in order to prove the whole claim as "not" true! This is a very strong logical conclusion in math, and is exactly how you would go about it in a proof.
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Conclusion: Not every mammal can be a pet
Premise: Tiger Example - Tigers are aggressive and can hurt people
Therefore, we have an argument!
I went to the next lesson and saw that he answered the tiger example, so I deleted my paragraph of frustration for him starting an example and not finishing it. My bad!!
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet = conclusion(claim is supported by premise)
After all,
tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people = premise ( as this claim is supporting another claim)
thats my understanding
The critical thing here is to relate (no pun intended) this back to the aim of an argument. To persuade. EVERYTHING in the argument is directed in doing this. How does this help with understanding the idea of support?
Let’s break down persuasion further. The 3 pillars (these are devices of support) of persuasive arguments that Aristotle (ironically, I am currently using ethos) gives us is the appeals:
Ehtos (credibility)
Pathos ( emotion)
Logos (logic)
Funnily enough, these are called pillars, think of these devices of support that act as pillars to hold up a persuasive arguments. If you were to take away a pillar (take away support), the argument falls down.
On the LSAT, we attempt to remain the realm of logos, reasoning.
Interestingly, I feel that this example of tigers as pets has the conclusion come before the premise; I identified, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet," as the conclusion of the argument with the evidence being, "... tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries..." Did you interpret this the same way? Am I way off base? Are we both way off base meaning tigers are actually incredible pets?
@madeinkeaven okay the next tab spoils this HAHAH nevermind, we have our answer
@madeinkeaven I interpret this the same way you did.
@madeinkeaven you're very right! Something I've learned studying for the LSAT is that conclusions can be found ANYWHERE in the argument-- at the beginning, middle, or end. It's matter of using tools like keywords and logical flow of information to identify what supports what and/or what is supported by what.
"solipsistic prisons of subjective sense perception"...try saying that real fast 10 times lol
that side comment had me smiling lol
I appreciate the differentiation between "an argument" and a "good argument". The structure itself simply means I am dealing with an argument at all. If the content matters, I can then dive in and assess the content in its own right.
Just considered me never being a lawyer ugh
Just for my notes
Conclusion: My daughter ate all the cookies.
Premise: I saw her eat all of the cookies and no one else was in the house but she and I.
@MelissaDuran haha thats pushing the support to the max