Long story short, if you drop the "if" it makes what you're saying clearer and makes the argument valid. Dropping that "if" turns it from a conditional to a hard-and-fast statement. With the "if", you're arguing a hypothetical--you don't actually know if Percy openly and notoriously kept his poodle, therefore the argument is not technically valid (though it is pretty close).
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?"
Basically, we have to grab the sufficient conditional from the conclusion, bump it up to the premises, and consider them facts. I will attempt to give an example.
Not Transformed Argument:
Premises:
Alex has a reliable car
Alex lives in the city
Conclusion:
If Alex leaves at 7am, then he will arrive to work on time.
Transformed Argument. (All I'm doing is getting the sufficient and bringing it to the premises)
Premises:
Alex has a reliable car
Alex lives in the city
Alex leaves at 7am
Conclusion:
Alex will arrive at work on time.
After all that we can see the missing rule.
Alex needs to have a reliable car, live in the city, and leaves at 7am to arrive work on time.
@ChristyLynnBROOKS i think its easier if you think of it as [domain: WHO the rule applies to] and rule [WHAT triggers the right side of the arrow] so for eg, [all people that live in nyc would be the domain, and keeping your pet openly and notoriously would be the rule]. i hope this makes sense
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.
@Amanhasnoname 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.
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.
Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential building with more than ten units.
ok? good for Percy I guess.
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.
wait...so what? What does the open and notorious three months have to do with the 10+ units thing or living in NYC? And why does any of this mean the landlord can't force him to get rid of his poodle?
Maybe there is a rule that says that this stuff about Percy means he can keep his poodle (NYC and B10+ and OpNo and 3+Ms → Right to keep poodle)?
All New York City residents living in buildings with more than ten units have an inalienable right to keep a pet if that animal has been kept openly and notoriously for three months or more.
Ohhhh that's what was missing! There is a rule that Percy has the right to keep his poodle if he meets those certain conditions. Since he does meet those conditions, the landlord can't take his dear poodle away from him. Now this argument actually makes sense.
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 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.
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.
111 comments
I wish there was a practice question after this, so we know an example of a question to use this technique for. #feedback
Long story short, if you drop the "if" it makes what you're saying clearer and makes the argument valid. Dropping that "if" turns it from a conditional to a hard-and-fast statement. With the "if", you're arguing a hypothetical--you don't actually know if Percy openly and notoriously kept his poodle, therefore the argument is not technically valid (though it is pretty close).
thanks for that because the above was word and lawgic vomit lol
what the helly?
@JoshuaCosmas I'm appreciate you share this feeling, which made me feel much better as I know it's not my problem lmao
Me and My FBI agent were confused by what was trying to be said here:(
I like this technique but I think in the end, it will end up confusing me more than helping me lol
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?"
@RyanKelly @MateoAgudelo your replies on this post were way more helpful in applying how this is useful than the actual video. Thanks!
@RyanKelly This helped so much. The example in the video tripped me up since we already knew the rule from the previous lesson. Thank you!! :)
is this necessary? it seems confusing and unhelpful
I wish they would give us a practice question in these modules that would be on the test...
me too! I don't know when--or how--to drill these problems!
Basically, we have to grab the sufficient conditional from the conclusion, bump it up to the premises, and consider them facts. I will attempt to give an example.
Not Transformed Argument:
Premises:
Alex has a reliable car
Alex lives in the city
Conclusion:
If Alex leaves at 7am, then he will arrive to work on time.
Transformed Argument. (All I'm doing is getting the sufficient and bringing it to the premises)
Premises:
Alex has a reliable car
Alex lives in the city
Alex leaves at 7am
Conclusion:
Alex will arrive at work on time.
After all that we can see the missing rule.
Alex needs to have a reliable car, live in the city, and leaves at 7am to arrive work on time.
Correct me if Im wrong anywhere
fam I MIGHT be the worst conditional reasoner of all time 🥀
@SethWiller nah, I probably have you beat in that category!
Especially if it required to kick something up to the domain cause I can't even kick myself for not getting this lesson.
@ChristyLynnBROOKS i think its easier if you think of it as [domain: WHO the rule applies to] and rule [WHAT triggers the right side of the arrow] so for eg, [all people that live in nyc would be the domain, and keeping your pet openly and notoriously would be the rule]. i hope this makes sense
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.
Wait. What is the missing rule, then? Is it because the conclusion is conditional? It hasn't actually happened? I am so confused.
@Amanhasnoname 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.
This confused me. I think the elaboration is a bit wordy and I can't seem to get everything that I am reading to stick.
me too
idk maybe its just me, but I literally keep watching and I can't understand this concept
@KeziaH19 same. Did you manage ending up understanding it? found some tips or any advice u would like to share? im desperate lol
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 need this whole kick it up thing to be explained to me like a five year old😭
@dancingqueen138 facts! I see some comments like, oh, this is really helpful... huh? Not to me! I must be the dumb one here.
guyssss what did he say i didn't get any of thatttt
Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential building with more than ten units.
ok? good for Percy I guess.
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.
wait...so what? What does the open and notorious three months have to do with the 10+ units thing or living in NYC? And why does any of this mean the landlord can't force him to get rid of his poodle?
Maybe there is a rule that says that this stuff about Percy means he can keep his poodle (NYC and B10+ and OpNo and 3+Ms → Right to keep poodle)?
All New York City residents living in buildings with more than ten units have an inalienable right to keep a pet if that animal has been kept openly and notoriously for three months or more.
Ohhhh that's what was missing! There is a rule that Percy has the right to keep his poodle if he meets those certain conditions. Since he does meet those conditions, the landlord can't take his dear poodle away from him. Now this argument actually makes sense.
Thank you so much!!! Nothing in that lesson was clear.
THANK YOU!
Would be helpful to have an example question here on identifying the missing conditional rule.
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!
lowkey glad im not the only one confused here lolz
Would like a video highlighting just how exactly this can be used on a question.
@FultonHoover 🙏🏻
I dont get it
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?
Yes! That's kind of how I paraphrased it as well :)
very much yay! thank you for this!
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.
did I miss something? What is the missing rule?
@GabrielaH watch the video again
glad the comment section passed the vibe check... (crash out = avoided)