@GraceMartin00 hi idk if im late but here's how i understand it: you basically just have to pretend or "suppose" something is true for the conclusion to be true. an example would be: [Sarah is a psychology student. If she takes organic chemistry, she will graduate.] here, the conclusion isn't simply stating she will graduate, it is laying down a condition which will then allow her to graduate. so if the question on the LSAT asks you: [Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?] you would have to "suppose" that sarah is taking organic chemistry. so now the argument becomes: [Sarah is a psychology student. Sarah is taking organic chem. Therefore, she will graduate]. the missing rule is: [Psychology students who take organic chem graduate]. the domain would be: psych students but the rule would be: who take organic chem. i hope this makes sense!!!
I think it's a bit frustrating that these core concepts are not introduced in the beginning crash course sections. You make reference to this concept many times within logical reasoning, but I had to search to find this lesson and it is nestled within some random learning section entirely.
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.
@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
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.
110 comments
This makes more sense to me now
@ClarEmile lol yea
Am I losing it? Can someone break down (like I'm 5) how he translated that conclusion? I cannot get past that part. :(
@GraceMartin00 hi idk if im late but here's how i understand it: you basically just have to pretend or "suppose" something is true for the conclusion to be true. an example would be: [Sarah is a psychology student. If she takes organic chemistry, she will graduate.] here, the conclusion isn't simply stating she will graduate, it is laying down a condition which will then allow her to graduate. so if the question on the LSAT asks you: [Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?] you would have to "suppose" that sarah is taking organic chemistry. so now the argument becomes: [Sarah is a psychology student. Sarah is taking organic chem. Therefore, she will graduate]. the missing rule is: [Psychology students who take organic chem graduate]. the domain would be: psych students but the rule would be: who take organic chem. i hope this makes sense!!!
I think it's a bit frustrating that these core concepts are not introduced in the beginning crash course sections. You make reference to this concept many times within logical reasoning, but I had to search to find this lesson and it is nestled within some random learning section entirely.
did I miss something? What is the missing rule?
@GabrielaH watch the video again
This was a pretty straight forward hack that i'll keep trying to implement in practice
can we always suppose the truth of the same set of facts? is there a scenario where this technique should be avoided
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.
@KhushyMandania Yes I agree, but particularly If we have A-->B, conclude A --> C, for ex, and then the rule finds B-->C or B-->C, I think!
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.
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.
@FultonHoover 🙏🏻
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
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
@KeziaH19 same. Did you manage ending up understanding it? found some tips or any advice u would like to share? im desperate lol
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?
@MelanieGonzalez Most relevant to assumption questions. Assumptions are the missing/unsaid premise or bridge between premises and conclusions.
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!! :)
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?
@JoshuaCosmas I'm appreciate you share this feeling, which made me feel much better as I know it's not my problem lmao