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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
8
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.
96 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.
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?
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.
guys do you know how much longer until they give us actual problems?
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.
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.