So I think this is really helpful for sufficient assumption questions (if you don't know, this is a question type on the LSAT). So basically, the premises are A and the conclusion is B. The only way to get to B is to find the missing rule, which would be A -> B.
I think this question is confusing because the previous lesson biases you. If you were just offered "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" and had never seen this theme/example/whatever before, it would be obvious that this argument is flawed as whether or not "Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more" would be clearly irrelevant as it does not fall under an established rule.
But instead we are all thinking back to the earlier lesson and operating with the assumption that "pOpNo and p3+Ms" is part of the rule, and the example given here fulfills this rule, so it seems valid when biased.
Similar example: I live in the USA. Therefore, If I have the right to freedom of speech then I can say whatever I want. The missing link is between living in the USA and having the right to freedom of speech. Facts: USA. Conclusion: Freedom of Speech -> Say whatever I want. We can rewrite this using the "kick it up" method by saying: I live in the USA. I have the right to freedom of speech. Therefore, I can say whatever I want. Facts: USA and Freedom of Speech. Conclusion: I can say whatever I want. The assumption in my original example necessary for the conclusion is that living in the USA means I have the right to freedom of speech. These Types of questions will show up on the LSAT that ask something like: "Which of the following must be assumed in order to justify the conclusion?"
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.
2
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.
94 comments
Would be helpful to have an example question here on identifying the missing conditional rule.
glad the comment section passed the vibe check... (crash out = avoided)
So I think this is really helpful for sufficient assumption questions (if you don't know, this is a question type on the LSAT). So basically, the premises are A and the conclusion is B. The only way to get to B is to find the missing rule, which would be A -> B.
I need this whole kick it up thing to be explained to me like a five year old😭
I dont get it
Please focus the explanation on getting to the solution. This was extremely unhelpful.
I think this question is confusing because the previous lesson biases you. If you were just offered "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" and had never seen this theme/example/whatever before, it would be obvious that this argument is flawed as whether or not "Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more" would be clearly irrelevant as it does not fall under an established rule.
But instead we are all thinking back to the earlier lesson and operating with the assumption that "pOpNo and p3+Ms" is part of the rule, and the example given here fulfills this rule, so it seems valid when biased.
Would like a video highlighting just how exactly this can be used on a question.
fam I MIGHT be the worst conditional reasoner of all time 🥀
so the point is to turn hypotheticals into premises, right? In order to make it easier to understand...
is this necessary? it seems confusing and unhelpful
idk maybe its just me, but I literally keep watching and I can't understand this concept
I like this technique but I think in the end, it will end up confusing me more than helping me lol
Is this relevant for questions like: The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that...? Or is that not what this technique is for?
Similar example: I live in the USA. Therefore, If I have the right to freedom of speech then I can say whatever I want. The missing link is between living in the USA and having the right to freedom of speech. Facts: USA. Conclusion: Freedom of Speech -> Say whatever I want. We can rewrite this using the "kick it up" method by saying: I live in the USA. I have the right to freedom of speech. Therefore, I can say whatever I want. Facts: USA and Freedom of Speech. Conclusion: I can say whatever I want. The assumption in my original example necessary for the conclusion is that living in the USA means I have the right to freedom of speech. These Types of questions will show up on the LSAT that ask something like: "Which of the following must be assumed in order to justify the conclusion?"
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.