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.
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.
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.
I understand the difference by definition but when there comes the example like the two sentences in this video... I struggle to know which one is the premise and which one is the conclusion. To me, it seem like the conclusion is more subjective, more like the speaker's commentary in the argument?
So to make sure i have this right. Premise: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet
Conclusion: After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
So that is a example of something that is not a argument because the 2nd claim/conclusion is not more likely to be tre because the 1st claim/premise is not true?
This might be obvious, but a "claim" is a statement (premise)? Correct? So if the conclusion claim supports the premise claim, then that means the conclusion is more likely to be true? Because the premise can only pitch the claim, and the conclusion can only support the claim.
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.
I'm a bit confused if he's trying to get us to make connections between the premise and conclusion. Shouldn't the breakdown stay on the original sample question that was given to begin with, so we can start to understand how to extract premises and conclusions from the questions? Jumping to new examples is confusing!
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!!
Essentially, support is the relationship between the Premise and conclusion. And our job is to determine if the structure, THAT IS SUPPORT, between premise and conclusion is STRONG ENOUGH???
4
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
84 comments
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.
One does not simply walk into LSAT test prep knowing truth, support, premise and conclusion.
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.
💸
premise : my dog barks loudly when I give him a bath conclusion : my dog does not like baths. Is this correct?
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.
I understand the difference by definition but when there comes the example like the two sentences in this video... I struggle to know which one is the premise and which one is the conclusion. To me, it seem like the conclusion is more subjective, more like the speaker's commentary in the argument?
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.
Does the premise and conclusion define the structure of the argument?
Conclusion: I like to go to gym.
Premises: Because, it keeps me healthy and active.
Conclusion backing out the premises
So to make sure i have this right. Premise: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet
Conclusion: After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
So that is a example of something that is not a argument because the 2nd claim/conclusion is not more likely to be tre because the 1st claim/premise is not true?
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!
This might be obvious, but a "claim" is a statement (premise)? Correct? So if the conclusion claim supports the premise claim, then that means the conclusion is more likely to be true? Because the premise can only pitch the claim, and the conclusion can only support the claim.
Wait, I'm confused. If a -> b, then wouldn't
b -> a, essentially meaning that they are equal to each other?
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.
An aside, the infinite regress of definitions reminds me of the now infamous Jordan Peterson clip. "What do you mean by believe?" LOL
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.”
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.
I'm a bit confused if he's trying to get us to make connections between the premise and conclusion. Shouldn't the breakdown stay on the original sample question that was given to begin with, so we can start to understand how to extract premises and conclusions from the questions? Jumping to new examples is confusing!
Quid est veritas?
Are the videos giving the same information as the paragraphs?
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!!
"solipsistic prisons of subjective sense perception"...try saying that real fast 10 times lol
I just wish he would focus on the examples initially provided and not go onto another example:(
Essentially, support is the relationship between the Premise and conclusion. And our job is to determine if the structure, THAT IS SUPPORT, between premise and conclusion is STRONG ENOUGH???