These should be labelled as optional because, to me, they were very unclear and added so much noise when doing the practice problems from before. Totally mind-boggled.
I got so caught up on the idea of who is considered a "resident." IE: Is everyone who lives in NYC technically considered to be a NYC Resident? Most locales require 6 months+ of continues presence to be considered a legal "resident." If peter has lived in the building for 3 months with his poodle, is he a "resident" yet? I guess we can ignore that, but if I were given this question on the test, I'd be wondering if the change of language from "NYC Resident" to "Peter lives there" is a valid reason for me to say that he does not yet have the inalienable right yet.
I would completely understand the premie and the logic (and the Lawgic) still potentially get this question wrong if there was an option to state that it's unknown whether he has the inalienable right (since we aren't given the rules for who is considered to be a "resident").
Basically we're looking for a statement that will bridge the premises to the conclusion. Looking at the example given, the premises seems completely disjointed from the conclusion. This missing rule question is basically asking how can we make these premises make sense in the argument. So by making the disjointed premises into sufficient conditions for the conclusion, we are making a bridge to connect these statements together in order to make the argument more valid.
Adding the missing rule into the argument makes it more valid. Here's what I think it would look like after adding it:
If a person lives in NYC in a building with more than ten units, and that person has kept an animal openly and notoriously for three months or more, then that person has an inalienable right to keep that animal as a pet. Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential buildings with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it.
Sorry, but this is a poorly designed lesson. It REALLY needs to be made clear that we are to forget the previous lesson. Otherwise, I am left with the assumption that the two are related.
For this example, does the missing rule have to be: NYC and B10+ and OpNo and 3+Ms → R or could it be just one or a few of the facts such as: NYC and B10+ → R, because this can also trigger the conclusion?
#help I am struggling to understand the Kick it up to the conditional conclusion rule. So, if someone could check my summary and let me know if I am misunderstanding something that would be great!
To summarize, you are reading a statement that is invalid because the premises are not premises they are just facts. Further the "missing rule" here are actual premises. The goal here is to find what would be the appropriate premises to have to ensure a valid argument and that the premises support the conclusion.
I didn't understand it much when I first learned it and felt discouraged, but it becomes much more intuitive when you have been practicing for a while. Kicking up to the domain and into the premise set is INCREDIBLY important for the future, so keep this in your back pocket even if it feels confusing right now. It gets better!
I don't understand the point of this lesson. Why use the same example as the previous page if it's not supposed to be related? It seems like it only does so to make this strategy seem useful, because without inferring the rule from the other page to be true here, we would have no reason to assume those requirements to be the rule in this example.
I had to watch this video twice and read through the replies to properly understand the Kick Up Conditional Conclusion. Will there be more places to practice this technique?
When he says "missing rule," does he mean one of the answers will relay the missing rule? Ex: "Which of the following can be assumed based on the stimulus?" ..We are mapping it the other way to get the answer?
I'm going to try to paraphrase this to make sure I am tracking this concept:
You take the premises from the conditional conclusion and move them up to the earlier group of sufficient conditions (other premises). This technique helps isolate a conclusion to be an unconditional statement, thus making it easier to identify the missing rule that would make the argument valid.
Can someone explain to me why this argument is invalid and what is the rule that is apparently missing?
"Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential building with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it."
From what I understood the rules to be in the previous lesson, if someone who lives in NYC in a residential building with + 10 units has "openly and notoriously" kept the pet for 3+ months (which is exactly what this statement is saying), then that person cannot be forced to get rid of it.
PS. Also, how hard was it for whoever wrote this lesson to explain (in English) what the missing rule was?
"..... From that perspective, the two arguments are identical. In either instance, we are to suppose the truth of the same set of facts. It's just that in the original, that supposition happens in the sufficient condition of the conclusion whereas in the transformed, that supposition happens in the premises."
What exactly is the supposition in the second / transformed argument? My understanding is that, pNYC and pB10+ are stated premises. Can someone clarify this?
So basically, what it is saying is that because he did not specifically state a rule vs saying "if Percy does these things" that a rule is missing? I'm a little confused at how we are supposed to know a rule is missing in the first place.
This one threw me for a wind, but I think I got it, hoping this helps someone else.
From the lesson:
"Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential building with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it.
You can probably tell that this argument is not valid. It's missing a rule. Can you state the missing rule in order to make this argument valid? Perhaps you can, if you recall the previous lesson.
Missing rule: ?
Facts: pNYC and pB10+
Conclusion: pOpNo and p3+Ms → pR
From my understanding, the conclusion introduces a condition: that if Percy has kept his poodle openly and notoriously for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to remove the dog. However, imagine you are someone who hasn't seen the rules from the previous lesson. Without an explicit rule connecting the three-month period to the landlord's inability to act, you might reasonably ask, “What does Percy keeping his dog for three months have to do with anything?”
The issue is that the argument doesn’t provide the necessary background rule, leaving the conclusion unsupported. However, in logic, we need to take the passage at face value, meaning we must assume that such a rule exists, even if it isn’t stated outright. This makes the three-month period function as a condition that, when met, leads to the conclusion about the landlord's limitations.
Consider further: If the passage ended with the statement, “Percy named his dog Max,” it wouldn't require being treated as a rule because it has no bearing on the structure, strength, or soundness of the argument. It’s just an extra detail. However, if the conclusion stated, “Percy named his dog Max to comply with the building ordinance, allowed by New York City, which requires all dogs to be named Max,” we must treat this differently.
Even though this rule seems arbitrary, we are required to take it at face value—binary, either yes or no, 1 or 0. This now presents a condition that is necessary for Percy to legally keep his poodle in the building. Therefore, it becomes crucial to the structure of the argument, regardless of where it appears in the passage, because it imposes a requirement that must be fulfilled for Percy to have the right to keep his poodle.
In this case, the rule about naming the dog “Max” now directly affects the outcome, and we must accept it as essential to the logic of the argument.
Why use the exact same example as the previous page if they are not at all related to each other?
Can we expect this kind of hidden non-sequitur - one that seems to relate to a previous question and has the exact same wording but is not - on the actual LSAT? If so, this would have been a good time to explain that this is actually a trick question and we should be aware of it. If not, then this is just a very poorly designed and confusing lesson.
5
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!
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.
74 comments
These should be labelled as optional because, to me, they were very unclear and added so much noise when doing the practice problems from before. Totally mind-boggled.
So this is helpful for identifying the principle sort of questions, right?
what the helly?
I got so caught up on the idea of who is considered a "resident." IE: Is everyone who lives in NYC technically considered to be a NYC Resident? Most locales require 6 months+ of continues presence to be considered a legal "resident." If peter has lived in the building for 3 months with his poodle, is he a "resident" yet? I guess we can ignore that, but if I were given this question on the test, I'd be wondering if the change of language from "NYC Resident" to "Peter lives there" is a valid reason for me to say that he does not yet have the inalienable right yet.
I would completely understand the premie and the logic (and the Lawgic) still potentially get this question wrong if there was an option to state that it's unknown whether he has the inalienable right (since we aren't given the rules for who is considered to be a "resident").
I've never seen a question ask for a missing rule, have you?
I wish there was a practice question after this, so we know an example of a question to use this technique for. #feedback
Basically we're looking for a statement that will bridge the premises to the conclusion. Looking at the example given, the premises seems completely disjointed from the conclusion. This missing rule question is basically asking how can we make these premises make sense in the argument. So by making the disjointed premises into sufficient conditions for the conclusion, we are making a bridge to connect these statements together in order to make the argument more valid.
Adding the missing rule into the argument makes it more valid. Here's what I think it would look like after adding it:
If a person lives in NYC in a building with more than ten units, and that person has kept an animal openly and notoriously for three months or more, then that person has an inalienable right to keep that animal as a pet. Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential buildings with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it.
Is this correct?
Sorry, but this is a poorly designed lesson. It REALLY needs to be made clear that we are to forget the previous lesson. Otherwise, I am left with the assumption that the two are related.
For this example, does the missing rule have to be: NYC and B10+ and OpNo and 3+Ms → R or could it be just one or a few of the facts such as: NYC and B10+ → R, because this can also trigger the conclusion?
#help I am struggling to understand the Kick it up to the conditional conclusion rule. So, if someone could check my summary and let me know if I am misunderstanding something that would be great!
To summarize, you are reading a statement that is invalid because the premises are not premises they are just facts. Further the "missing rule" here are actual premises. The goal here is to find what would be the appropriate premises to have to ensure a valid argument and that the premises support the conclusion.
I wish they would give us a practice question in these modules that would be on the test...
Would this be used to find an assumption in the argument as well?
I didn't understand it much when I first learned it and felt discouraged, but it becomes much more intuitive when you have been practicing for a while. Kicking up to the domain and into the premise set is INCREDIBLY important for the future, so keep this in your back pocket even if it feels confusing right now. It gets better!
i'm so confused :(
I don't understand the point of this lesson. Why use the same example as the previous page if it's not supposed to be related? It seems like it only does so to make this strategy seem useful, because without inferring the rule from the other page to be true here, we would have no reason to assume those requirements to be the rule in this example.
I had to watch this video twice and read through the replies to properly understand the Kick Up Conditional Conclusion. Will there be more places to practice this technique?
When he says "missing rule," does he mean one of the answers will relay the missing rule? Ex: "Which of the following can be assumed based on the stimulus?" ..We are mapping it the other way to get the answer?
#Help
My Mission with this Kick Up Rule is to make a conditional conclusion into a unconditional conclusion?
I'm going to try to paraphrase this to make sure I am tracking this concept:
You take the premises from the conditional conclusion and move them up to the earlier group of sufficient conditions (other premises). This technique helps isolate a conclusion to be an unconditional statement, thus making it easier to identify the missing rule that would make the argument valid.
......yay or nay?
Can someone explain to me why this argument is invalid and what is the rule that is apparently missing?
"Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential building with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it."
From what I understood the rules to be in the previous lesson, if someone who lives in NYC in a residential building with + 10 units has "openly and notoriously" kept the pet for 3+ months (which is exactly what this statement is saying), then that person cannot be forced to get rid of it.
PS. Also, how hard was it for whoever wrote this lesson to explain (in English) what the missing rule was?
All that and I still have no idea what the missing rule was.
"..... From that perspective, the two arguments are identical. In either instance, we are to suppose the truth of the same set of facts. It's just that in the original, that supposition happens in the sufficient condition of the conclusion whereas in the transformed, that supposition happens in the premises."
What exactly is the supposition in the second / transformed argument? My understanding is that, pNYC and pB10+ are stated premises. Can someone clarify this?
So basically, what it is saying is that because he did not specifically state a rule vs saying "if Percy does these things" that a rule is missing? I'm a little confused at how we are supposed to know a rule is missing in the first place.
This one threw me for a wind, but I think I got it, hoping this helps someone else.
From the lesson:
"Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential building with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it.
You can probably tell that this argument is not valid. It's missing a rule. Can you state the missing rule in order to make this argument valid? Perhaps you can, if you recall the previous lesson.
Missing rule: ?
Facts: pNYC and pB10+
Conclusion: pOpNo and p3+Ms → pR
From my understanding, the conclusion introduces a condition: that if Percy has kept his poodle openly and notoriously for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to remove the dog. However, imagine you are someone who hasn't seen the rules from the previous lesson. Without an explicit rule connecting the three-month period to the landlord's inability to act, you might reasonably ask, “What does Percy keeping his dog for three months have to do with anything?”
The issue is that the argument doesn’t provide the necessary background rule, leaving the conclusion unsupported. However, in logic, we need to take the passage at face value, meaning we must assume that such a rule exists, even if it isn’t stated outright. This makes the three-month period function as a condition that, when met, leads to the conclusion about the landlord's limitations.
Consider further: If the passage ended with the statement, “Percy named his dog Max,” it wouldn't require being treated as a rule because it has no bearing on the structure, strength, or soundness of the argument. It’s just an extra detail. However, if the conclusion stated, “Percy named his dog Max to comply with the building ordinance, allowed by New York City, which requires all dogs to be named Max,” we must treat this differently.
Even though this rule seems arbitrary, we are required to take it at face value—binary, either yes or no, 1 or 0. This now presents a condition that is necessary for Percy to legally keep his poodle in the building. Therefore, it becomes crucial to the structure of the argument, regardless of where it appears in the passage, because it imposes a requirement that must be fulfilled for Percy to have the right to keep his poodle.
In this case, the rule about naming the dog “Max” now directly affects the outcome, and we must accept it as essential to the logic of the argument.
#feedback
Why use the exact same example as the previous page if they are not at all related to each other?
Can we expect this kind of hidden non-sequitur - one that seems to relate to a previous question and has the exact same wording but is not - on the actual LSAT? If so, this would have been a good time to explain that this is actually a trick question and we should be aware of it. If not, then this is just a very poorly designed and confusing lesson.