In short, we're evaluating the strength of support (relationship), not the claim's truthfulness. We care more about the structural integrity of the argument.
@SarahShaver something i read in the loophole that helped is that we should all assume the premises are true and not question them, only attack the relationship between them and the conclusion the stimulus makes
A trick I learned from an LSAT tutor is the "why, because" test. The why is the conclusion, the because is your premise. For example: "Blue and red make purple. Purple is on the spectrum of red and blue is used to deepen and shift red to a dark lilac hue." So, why do blue and red make purple? Because blue changes how red functions. While I am not an LSAT tutor, I do have a Discord study group if anyone would like to join (or to play MC lol): https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk
To help anyone's confusion, this passage is just explaining how to identify a premise and conclusion. And the way to figure this out is to ask yourself "If claim A were true, would it make claim B more likely to be true?" If the answer is yes, then A is supporting B. A= Premise, B= Conclusion
So, from what I gathered in this topic, we have to concentrate on the argument itself and to not think about the real reality, but rather to think about the concept of the argument itself reality.
P supports C, and it makes sense. P being true strengthens trust that C could be more.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're confused about why "Not every mammal is suitable..." statement can't be the premise, the statement does not confirm that all mammals are not suitable to keep as a pet.
For example:
Premise : Not every mammal is suitable...
Conclusion: Tigers are very agressive...
We simply don't know if Tiger is one of the mammals P claims to be not suitable to keep as a pet. Therefore, it does not support the conclusion.
Please enlighten me with the wrath of your knowledge if I'm wrong.
For something to be an argument it has to have a premise that supports a conclusion.
In the example he gave, we were identifying if it was an argument and if so, what was the premise and conclusion.
For example:
"Premise: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Conclusion: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people."
In this example the Premise DOES NOT support the conclusion. BUT we can still look at the statements in the reverse order:
For example:
"Premise: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
In this example the Premise DOES support the conclusion. THEREFORE THIS IS AN ARGUMENT.
This also means that the way we have labeled each claim in this second example is correct. Tigers being aggressive is the premise and not all mammals being suitable pets is the conclusion. "If it's true that tigers are aggressive and can hurt people, then it is more likely true that not all mammals make good pets."
NOTE TO SELF: Throw away all understanding or logic you may have of what is in the text. What you have in front of you is simply that.
Premise: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Conclusion: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people
Okay, well, we know that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. why? they dont say since their conclusion is "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people." I guess logically that is correct, but there is absolutely nothing supporting this conclusion. There, it is flawed. Now if the premise were to say something along the lines of "Tigers are not suitable to keep as a pet, since previous owners ended up getting mauled" then it would absolutely support the conclusion!
@KhangaiChinzorig that's my main takeaway from this. Train your brain to take the writers argument at face value and not to fall into the traps of what we know from our knowledge of the world.
Listening to classical music helps people focus. Studies have shown significant improvements in productivity when people listen to Mozart and Beethoven.
Im curious about this: do we always presume that a tiger is a mammal in this question, or is there a potential question where we are not told a tiger is a mammal and must rely on common knowledge that it is a mammal. Is it always safe to presume these things in the LSAT.
This is actually a great question. Sometimes it's hard to tell when it's safe to assume certain facts which are not explicitly stated in the stimulus. You do have to be careful about smuggling in assumptions from the outside world, and there is a way in which you have to treat each stimulus as a self-contained logical universe unto itself. However, in this case it is safe to assume that Tigers are mammals because not only is it common knowledge, but it is also strongly implied within the stimulus that Tigers are within the category of mammal.
Thank you! I was just thinking this and was even thinking "how do we know to assume that in this context the definition of suitable essentially means safe?" It can be difficult to assess what they want us to assume is common knowledge vs. what is a posteriori knowledge in the world of the stimulus.
@WrongSaint isn't it essential like a known fact vs a learned fact? Like its objectively true that all Tigers are Mammals, but its a learned fact that they are aggressive and dangerous.
“Premise”: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. “Conclusion”: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
This argument is missing a premise that supports the conclusion. If there was a premise stating “tigers are mammals that have been kept as pets, but it’s ended in disaster every time because the tigers kept violently killing their owners” —> well then that does segue into a main point conclusion where we can see that tigers are aggressive and cause harm to people. Without that connecting premise though, the argument is flawed when presented in that direction.
Does that make sense to yall? It’s how I interpreted this example and hopefully it helped someone else
@monmon I see what your saying but I think you can safely assume commonly accepted characteristics, e.g., tigers are powerful predators and not domesticated. Not every single detail will be provided on the test or in life/practice. But, from a strict formal logic stand point, you're not wrong. But that's why the LSAT is not 1:1 with formal logic.
@JBOWLN Yes but they're saying to remove all safe assumptions because that's the knowledge you've gathered through/from life. Take what you see written for face value. Don't add or subtract based off of what you know beyond what's on the paper.
Not sure if this will help people, but how I think of it is that one (the conclusion) is a statement, it's blunt and makes a clear point. the support (premise) is the evidence that supports it. In the Ex. about the tiger, the most blunt point is that some mammals aren't a good pet. The evidence to back this up (the knitty gritty) is like...well, look at a fricken tiger! They can't be a pet.
hope this is helpful to some extent.
there are also indicator words for conclusion + premise (use sparingly) but I assume we'll get to it
Some people seem to get hung up on the order of statements as being an indicator of premise and conclusion because that is the order we are taught to write persuasive essays in. But it is apparent that it’s not order that the claim is provided but degree of specificity of the claim itself. Premises tend to be more specific claims while conclusions are more general. So in this case, the general statement of “some mammals…pets” is a general claim that receives support from the more specific claim about “tigers”. We do have to rely on some outside knowledge (a tiger is a mammal, pets should be tame), but should not try to allow our outside knowledge to form premises (“not all mammals are tigers”, or “some tigers are tame”). So it’s probably useful in order to avoid confusion to mentally order claims by degree of specificity. The least specific claim is most likely the conclusion. Also, don't challenge the truth of premises. Rather, ask "if true, does it support the claim I believe to be the conclusion."
I really like that there is a "Let's Review" section at the end of every video. Like many have noted, I just switched over from V1, and I have to say I am loving V2 so far, much more efficient and effective!
version 1 and version 2. Version 1 course is for those taking the LSAT prior to August 2024, and version 2 is for those taking the LSAT after August 2024.
For the tiger argument, it is a good exercise to add support yourself, take a moment and act as a test maker writing an argument. Be creative, take a wholly different approach to the example support.
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Why should I believe this?
Support: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Additional Support: If you had a elephant as a pet, you would have spend thousands of dollars of food per months which is well above what the average person could afford.
Additional Support: Moose require that you live in conditions that are well above what can be attained by humans on a daily basis.
Additional Support: Some mammals are so messy that having them as a pet poses significant danger for humans.
All of these make the conclusion more likely to be true. The possibilities are infinite!
169 comments
The only conclusion I'd like to encounter is finishing the LSAT
In short, we're evaluating the strength of support (relationship), not the claim's truthfulness. We care more about the structural integrity of the argument.
This was a great way to understand this!
I love this! Adding this comment to my notes for sure!
So basically ONLY use the information given and don’t add your own truth to it
@SarahShaver something i read in the loophole that helped is that we should all assume the premises are true and not question them, only attack the relationship between them and the conclusion the stimulus makes
I like to think of support with the word "therefore"
Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people THEREFORE not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet
This trick doesn't work with every situation, but it can be helpful for starting off to recognize the patterns.
A trick I learned from an LSAT tutor is the "why, because" test. The why is the conclusion, the because is your premise. For example: "Blue and red make purple. Purple is on the spectrum of red and blue is used to deepen and shift red to a dark lilac hue." So, why do blue and red make purple? Because blue changes how red functions. While I am not an LSAT tutor, I do have a Discord study group if anyone would like to join (or to play MC lol): https://discord.gg/b8XaYkZHxk
@Naomiboyer04 Thank you for writing this! Very helpful actually.
@Naomiboyer04 This actually made it click for me, thanks!!
@Naomiboyer04 This was super helpful, thanks!
@Naomiboyer04 thank you soooooooooooo muchh
Basically it seems like we have to just forget about truth and focus on the argument itself
To help anyone's confusion, this passage is just explaining how to identify a premise and conclusion. And the way to figure this out is to ask yourself "If claim A were true, would it make claim B more likely to be true?" If the answer is yes, then A is supporting B. A= Premise, B= Conclusion
So, from what I gathered in this topic, we have to concentrate on the argument itself and to not think about the real reality, but rather to think about the concept of the argument itself reality.
Premise : Tigers are very agressive...
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable...
P supports C, and it makes sense. P being true strengthens trust that C could be more.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're confused about why "Not every mammal is suitable..." statement can't be the premise, the statement does not confirm that all mammals are not suitable to keep as a pet.
For example:
Premise : Not every mammal is suitable...
Conclusion: Tigers are very agressive...
We simply don't know if Tiger is one of the mammals P claims to be not suitable to keep as a pet. Therefore, it does not support the conclusion.
Please enlighten me with the wrath of your knowledge if I'm wrong.
For something to be an argument it has to have a premise that supports a conclusion.
In the example he gave, we were identifying if it was an argument and if so, what was the premise and conclusion.
For example:
"Premise: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Conclusion: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people."
In this example the Premise DOES NOT support the conclusion. BUT we can still look at the statements in the reverse order:
For example:
"Premise: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
In this example the Premise DOES support the conclusion. THEREFORE THIS IS AN ARGUMENT.
This also means that the way we have labeled each claim in this second example is correct. Tigers being aggressive is the premise and not all mammals being suitable pets is the conclusion. "If it's true that tigers are aggressive and can hurt people, then it is more likely true that not all mammals make good pets."
Hope this helps!! 💕💕
NOTE TO SELF: Throw away all understanding or logic you may have of what is in the text. What you have in front of you is simply that.
Premise: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Conclusion: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people
Okay, well, we know that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. why? they dont say since their conclusion is "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people." I guess logically that is correct, but there is absolutely nothing supporting this conclusion. There, it is flawed. Now if the premise were to say something along the lines of "Tigers are not suitable to keep as a pet, since previous owners ended up getting mauled" then it would absolutely support the conclusion!
The framing of “support” meaning “to make more likely to be true” unlocked something in my brain.
So basically you have to ignore what you know about the world and take what the writers have said face value on the lsat?
@KhangaiChinzorig thats what I was thinking
@KhangaiChinzorig you must accept every premise as a fact. you can fight the hell out of the conclusion
@KhangaiChinzorig that's my main takeaway from this. Train your brain to take the writers argument at face value and not to fall into the traps of what we know from our knowledge of the world.
My brain is so screwed trying to understand this. God damnit
Below is my example:
Listening to classical music helps people focus. Studies have shown significant improvements in productivity when people listen to Mozart and Beethoven.
I would love feedback!
Premise: “Studies have shown…”
Conclusion: “Listening to classical music…”
Great example!
Premise - "The parent who throws support."
Conclusion- "The child who needs support"
I see how a lot of people are confused with the issue that I also have, but reading the comments are somehow not hitting the spot for me.
My question (also) is, how do we tell the difference between a premise and a conclusion? How should I train myself to pick the right one?
congratulations you have just made two basic statements beyond comprehension
@RyanUribe 😭
@RyanUribe SCREAMING 🤣
@RyanUribe lmfaoooo this is hilarious
Im curious about this: do we always presume that a tiger is a mammal in this question, or is there a potential question where we are not told a tiger is a mammal and must rely on common knowledge that it is a mammal. Is it always safe to presume these things in the LSAT.
Good question. I was curious about this myself.
This is actually a great question. Sometimes it's hard to tell when it's safe to assume certain facts which are not explicitly stated in the stimulus. You do have to be careful about smuggling in assumptions from the outside world, and there is a way in which you have to treat each stimulus as a self-contained logical universe unto itself. However, in this case it is safe to assume that Tigers are mammals because not only is it common knowledge, but it is also strongly implied within the stimulus that Tigers are within the category of mammal.
Thank you! I was just thinking this and was even thinking "how do we know to assume that in this context the definition of suitable essentially means safe?" It can be difficult to assess what they want us to assume is common knowledge vs. what is a posteriori knowledge in the world of the stimulus.
@WrongSaint isn't it essential like a known fact vs a learned fact? Like its objectively true that all Tigers are Mammals, but its a learned fact that they are aggressive and dangerous.
This argument is missing a premise that supports the conclusion. If there was a premise stating “tigers are mammals that have been kept as pets, but it’s ended in disaster every time because the tigers kept violently killing their owners” —> well then that does segue into a main point conclusion where we can see that tigers are aggressive and cause harm to people. Without that connecting premise though, the argument is flawed when presented in that direction.
Does that make sense to yall? It’s how I interpreted this example and hopefully it helped someone else
@monmon Thank you for this explanation. I got stumped on this one and had to re-read it multiple times.
@monmon I see what your saying but I think you can safely assume commonly accepted characteristics, e.g., tigers are powerful predators and not domesticated. Not every single detail will be provided on the test or in life/practice. But, from a strict formal logic stand point, you're not wrong. But that's why the LSAT is not 1:1 with formal logic.
@JBOWLN Yes but they're saying to remove all safe assumptions because that's the knowledge you've gathered through/from life. Take what you see written for face value. Don't add or subtract based off of what you know beyond what's on the paper.
Not sure if this will help people, but how I think of it is that one (the conclusion) is a statement, it's blunt and makes a clear point. the support (premise) is the evidence that supports it. In the Ex. about the tiger, the most blunt point is that some mammals aren't a good pet. The evidence to back this up (the knitty gritty) is like...well, look at a fricken tiger! They can't be a pet.
hope this is helpful to some extent.
there are also indicator words for conclusion + premise (use sparingly) but I assume we'll get to it
No, because this was eye opening. Being able to expand my thought process with little limit is so freeing.
Some people seem to get hung up on the order of statements as being an indicator of premise and conclusion because that is the order we are taught to write persuasive essays in. But it is apparent that it’s not order that the claim is provided but degree of specificity of the claim itself. Premises tend to be more specific claims while conclusions are more general. So in this case, the general statement of “some mammals…pets” is a general claim that receives support from the more specific claim about “tigers”. We do have to rely on some outside knowledge (a tiger is a mammal, pets should be tame), but should not try to allow our outside knowledge to form premises (“not all mammals are tigers”, or “some tigers are tame”). So it’s probably useful in order to avoid confusion to mentally order claims by degree of specificity. The least specific claim is most likely the conclusion. Also, don't challenge the truth of premises. Rather, ask "if true, does it support the claim I believe to be the conclusion."
Does anyone see a flaw in this?
this clears up my initial confusion for if the order of statements mattered or not, thankyou.
I really like that there is a "Let's Review" section at the end of every video. Like many have noted, I just switched over from V1, and I have to say I am loving V2 so far, much more efficient and effective!
I TOTALLY AGREE! I enjoy it as well.
can i ask what is v1 and v2?
version 1 and version 2. Version 1 course is for those taking the LSAT prior to August 2024, and version 2 is for those taking the LSAT after August 2024.
For the tiger argument, it is a good exercise to add support yourself, take a moment and act as a test maker writing an argument. Be creative, take a wholly different approach to the example support.
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Why should I believe this?
Support: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
Additional Support: If you had a elephant as a pet, you would have spend thousands of dollars of food per months which is well above what the average person could afford.
Additional Support: Moose require that you live in conditions that are well above what can be attained by humans on a daily basis.
Additional Support: Some mammals are so messy that having them as a pet poses significant danger for humans.
All of these make the conclusion more likely to be true. The possibilities are infinite!