I wonder If should keep with the basic part. I understand the argument structure and how its parts correlate to each other. I am also a little concern missing any important small details included in this section...
@GGG If your starting diagnostic is in the high 150s or above, then I think it's OK to move quickly through this (and even to skip entirely). If it's lower, you'll get more value out of these first modules. You can still feel free to move through them quickly if you feel you understand them, though.
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.
so does this mean that in an argument the premise can be untrue but the conclusion still be true, but the argument itself is less solid/true due to the lack of a premise that supports it?
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.
@AngieMoreno You can skip ahead to the "You Try" lessons if you'd like, then come back to the lessons you skipped if you find that you're missing some important concepts. Also, at any time, you can use the "Smart Drill" button on the dashboard. There's nothing stopping you from including a few drills every week as you work through the CC, or even from skipping past lessons if you feel they're too basic/easy for you.
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.
@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
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?
@CourtneyMorales My bad, my browser wasn't loading the infographics, but I see what you're referring to now. What it's saying is that arguments use support as the structure to support a conclusion. Kind of like how a house has structural walls (the support) that holds up the roof (the conclusion) of the house. Or at least that's my interpretation of it.
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?
@GabrielleEarley I think this is actually flipped. At least in my opinion the conclusion would be: “Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet” because the premise: “After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people” actually supports the claim that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
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.
@Lawlow I am quite confused. From the way I read this and watched the video, the conclusion is always supported by the premise (pause), let me not use the word "ALWAYS", but usually. If a conclusion claim supports a premise, wouldn't that previous be a sub-conclusion since it would signify the presence of the main conclusion? I do not know if I am making sense.
@JimmyCrosbyMalanda yes you're making sense and in fact correct. I just finished the lesson - if there is possibly two conclusions, which are then supported by their own premises, then the first conclusion will be the sub-conclusion which ultimately also supports the main conclusion
@Jineen I think in a mathematical sense, you are correct; a->b, b->a. However, on the LSAT, premise (a) can only support the conclusion (b); a->b, and not the other way around because the conclusion's role (b) is only to receive the support from the premise. We cannot say, "tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people because not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." The premise in this example does not support the conclusion.
@JaceGuinto95 to be clear, if by the arrow “->” we mean “logically necessitates”, then a->b does not imply b->a. But if we mean “increases the likelihood of” then yes. But then this wouldn’t imply that a and b are the same, just that they have some mutual information.
@CuylerBrehaut a -> b would mean a supports b. At least, in this context, that is what I meant. In the original example, the premise (a) increased the likelihood of the conclusion (b). However, when J.Y. altered the example, the claim that tigers were aggressive did not adequately support the claim that not every mammal is suitable to be kept as a pet. So, in this circumstance b did not support a (b -> a). A and b are not the same at all. A (the premise) is the claim in place to support B (the 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.
@CuylerBrehaut You're right that in certain probability theory support is symmetric, but on the LSAT support is about using one claim to justify another. This is inherently directional and argumentative support is asymmetric by nature. Hope this helps!
@DanielCullis What I mean is that the definition of "support" in the context of the LSAT is "increasing likelihood", i.e., increasing probability. But it is a mathematical fact that if A increases the probability of B then B must also increase the probability of A.
But are you saying the asymmetry comes from the arguer's intention?
@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.
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.
99 comments
I wonder If should keep with the basic part. I understand the argument structure and how its parts correlate to each other. I am also a little concern missing any important small details included in this section...
I guess I'll continue going through it.
@GGG If your starting diagnostic is in the high 150s or above, then I think it's OK to move quickly through this (and even to skip entirely). If it's lower, you'll get more value out of these first modules. You can still feel free to move through them quickly if you feel you understand them, though.
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.
so does this mean that in an argument the premise can be untrue but the conclusion still be true, but the argument itself is less solid/true due to the lack of a premise that supports it?
@ManuelEstrada Weak premise + Conclusion = Weak Argument. Still an argument, nonetheless.
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.
guys do you know how much longer until they give us actual problems?
@AngieMoreno You can skip ahead to the "You Try" lessons if you'd like, then come back to the lessons you skipped if you find that you're missing some important concepts. Also, at any time, you can use the "Smart Drill" button on the dashboard. There's nothing stopping you from including a few drills every week as you work through the CC, or even from skipping past lessons if you feel they're too basic/easy for you.
wait so, this IS an argument. right? lol
Just considered me never being a lawyer ugh
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!
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.
@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
💸
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.
@MelissaDuran haha thats pushing the support to the max
Does the premise and conclusion define the structure of the argument?
@CourtneyMorales the premise and the conclusion are the two things that every argument will consist of.
@CourtneyMorales My bad, my browser wasn't loading the infographics, but I see what you're referring to now. What it's saying is that arguments use support as the structure to support a conclusion. Kind of like how a house has structural walls (the support) that holds up the roof (the conclusion) of the house. Or at least that's my interpretation of it.
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?
@GabrielleEarley I think this is actually flipped. At least in my opinion the conclusion would be: “Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet” because the premise: “After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people” actually supports the claim that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
@PaulinaBaczkowski I thought so too.
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.
@Lawlow I am quite confused. From the way I read this and watched the video, the conclusion is always supported by the premise (pause), let me not use the word "ALWAYS", but usually. If a conclusion claim supports a premise, wouldn't that previous be a sub-conclusion since it would signify the presence of the main conclusion? I do not know if I am making sense.
@JimmyCrosbyMalanda yes you're making sense and in fact correct. I just finished the lesson - if there is possibly two conclusions, which are then supported by their own premises, then the first conclusion will be the sub-conclusion which ultimately also supports the main conclusion
Wait, I'm confused. If a -> b, then wouldn't
b -> a, essentially meaning that they are equal to each other?
@Jineen I think in a mathematical sense, you are correct; a->b, b->a. However, on the LSAT, premise (a) can only support the conclusion (b); a->b, and not the other way around because the conclusion's role (b) is only to receive the support from the premise. We cannot say, "tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people because not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." The premise in this example does not support the conclusion.
@JaceGuinto95 to be clear, if by the arrow “->” we mean “logically necessitates”, then a->b does not imply b->a. But if we mean “increases the likelihood of” then yes. But then this wouldn’t imply that a and b are the same, just that they have some mutual information.
@CuylerBrehaut a -> b would mean a supports b. At least, in this context, that is what I meant. In the original example, the premise (a) increased the likelihood of the conclusion (b). However, when J.Y. altered the example, the claim that tigers were aggressive did not adequately support the claim that not every mammal is suitable to be kept as a pet. So, in this circumstance b did not support a (b -> a). A and b are not the same at all. A (the premise) is the claim in place to support B (the 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.
@CuylerBrehaut You're right that in certain probability theory support is symmetric, but on the LSAT support is about using one claim to justify another. This is inherently directional and argumentative support is asymmetric by nature. Hope this helps!
@DanielCullis What I mean is that the definition of "support" in the context of the LSAT is "increasing likelihood", i.e., increasing probability. But it is a mathematical fact that if A increases the probability of B then B must also increase the probability of A.
But are you saying the asymmetry comes from the arguer's intention?
@CuylerBrehaut Would it always be symmetrical?
For example:
A) Sally has 3 green scarves.
B) After all, Sally likes the color green.
B supports A but A doesn’t necessarily support B because there could be a number of reasons why Sally has 3 green scarves.
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.
@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.