Interesting that defining the premise as a conclusion can destroy the argument and existence of support but switching their order makes no difference (same words)
@HNelson Well, switching the order AND editing some words makes a difference. In the example JY used, he adds "So" which makes the difference. Hope that helps.
This is so very true. The Syllabus of SCOTUS rules always states the conclusion (actual ruling) and only later relays the reasons for its decisions. It's amusing how you can see this when reading the tariff ruling, for example.
@GGG If you’re someone who thoroughly enjoys reading SCOTUS opinions and has excitedly shared these with friends or family — only to be met with a blank stare — law school is probably for you. That likely applies to most people on 7Sage, ha.
It's really interesting because when you think of a conclusion, especially what was taught in earlier schooling, you think of it as the last thing to come in a paragraph/argument. It's definitely a different perspective than what I'm used to.
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
What I gathered was that the order has no significance in the argument. As long as I am able to pin point what a conclusion is versus a premise, then I will be able to determine if one claim supports another.
Does it matter with the conjunctions or conjunctive adverbs? I think in the example it does not matter since like "after all" seems like a concluding conjunctive adverbs. However, in other cases, would conjunctive adverbs be a good hint to identify conclusions or serve as something that tricks people taking the test?
Can we think of it as the premise talking about something specific, like tigers? The conclusion is when the statement talks about the overall category of the premise, like mammals.
The premise is specific and the conclusion is the overall.
I think what you're asking is best applicable to this situation, but there's also no definition of argument that requires the premise to strictly be specific or the conclusion to be broad.
So to clarify between this video and the last, this video is talking about arguments, where order doesn't matter. The previous video was talking about truths and order does matter?
The order also does not matter in the previous video. It is more about whether the premise provides support or increases the likelihood of the conclusion being true. However, whether that premise comes first or second doesn't matter, the support is what you have to prove.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly. In an argument, there is a premise and a conclusion. The premise supports the conclusion, and the conclusion receives support from the premise. For the LSAT, support "increases the likelihood of the truth," and the order of the premise and conclusion doesn't matter in an argument. The premise might come first, with the conclusion last, or vice versa.
Yup, I believe that is correct. The conclusion can come in the beginning, middle, or even in the end. Premises have to be there in order for there to be an argument.
Just to be clear, your goal is to identify the claim, aka the conclusion, and then identify the supporting evidence for the claim like the why for the premise?
Hi! So both the premise and conclusion are claims. The premise is just the claim that supports the conclusion, while the conclusion is the claim that is being supported. The LSAT will ask you about the relationship between both claims (the premise and conclusion). And you're correct, the premise(s) would act as supporting evidence for the conclusion(s).
Let me know if I have this right. "It is wrong for countries to own nuclear weapons. After all, if used, it is likely these weapons would cause great harm to civilian populations.
Premise: If used, it is likely [nuclear weapons] would cause great harm to civilian populations.
Conclusion: It is wrong for countries to own nuclear weapons.
I'd agree. My assumption is that "owning nuclear weapons" is too broad and does not support "weapons would cause great harm. . ." I think Nuke weapons great harm → Supports → Wrong for countries to own*
And to reverse the phrasing but keep the premise and conclusion intact, one could say "If used, nuclear weapons would likely cause great harm to civilian populations. Therefore, countries are wrong to own nuclear weapons."
I think the reason why so many people get stumped on this is because in primary school we get it drilled into our heads that the conclusion should always come at the end of whatever we are reading or writing. But the reality is that substance matters far more than presentation. I believe that the importance of this lesson is that writing is an important component of the legal profession and people have varying styles and preferences. You will encounter prose that is not always intuitive. This is the LSAT's way of measuring your capacity to read and write like an attorney.
I agree, even reading this example a few lessons back I could clearly see it started with the conclusion but my brain was like wait is that allowed LOL
It's based on context. You need to find which of the statements is being supported by the other statement. Then you will find the conclusion. I hope that makes sense.
To differentiate between premise and conclusion, I've found it helpful to consider the premise as a fact and the conclusion as an opinion. However, the examples we've been working with can be tricky because the conclusions often seem likely to be true, even though they're technically opinions. For instance, take the statement: "Young kids can't drink too much coffee. Coffee has caffeine in it." In this case, it's a fact that coffee contains caffeine (with the exception of decaf, but we're working with the given sentence). The conclusion, "Young kids can't drink too much coffee," is an opinion that's being presented as a persuasive argument, supported by the factual premise about coffee containing caffeine.
to identify the premise, it has to be supporting the other claim and the conclusion has to besupported by the other claim (the premise). so, to identify the premise, you have to determine which statement makes the other one more likely to be true -- that will be your premise.
for example, industrial farming is bad for the environment. on industrial farms, the use of toxic herbicides causes weeds to develop stronger resistance to them, requiring farmers to use more toxic chemicals.
the conclusion: industrial farming is bad for the environment
the premise: on industrial farms, the use of toxic herbicides causes weeds to develop stronger resistance to them, requiring farmers to use more toxic chemicals.
this is because the second statement (on industrial farms, the use of toxic herbicides causes weeds to develop stronger resistance to them requiring farmers to use more toxic chemicals) supports the first statement that (industrial farming is bad for the environment).
in reverse, the first statement, (industrial farming is bad for the environment) is supported by the second statement that (the use of toxic herbicides on industrial farms causes weeds to develop stronger resistance to them requiring farmers to use more toxic chemicals.
i hope this makes sense and helps a little in your understanding!
This was so helpful! I just looked at pretty much every example in this comment section, and was able to easily identify premise and conclusion. Thank you!
In this case, the conclusion is still the first sentence. The second sentence still supports the first sentence. The only thing that changed is the transition phrasing "for example."
If an argument should recognized by whether if there is a claim, which if true, would make another claim more likely to be true. Would it still be considered an argument even if I know the claim is untrue. I'm a bit confused since support doesn't have to be true to be considered support so I was wondering if it can still be an argument even if the support is untrue. I think I might be diving too deep into it.
Like mentioned in the video, outside knowledge is not useful on the LSAT. The goal for us taking the test is not to read an argument and to determine if the argument is true or not, instead our goal is to see if it is supported. For example, if there is an argument of: "On my walk today, I only saw blue flowers. Therefore all flowers are blue." Now, we know this argument is not true because roses exist, however that does not make this not be an argument. Like I said before, we're not trying to figure out if the argument is true, we are trying to break apart the argument into conclusion and premise. Which for this example, the conclusion is "all flowers are blue," and the premise is "on my walk today, all the flowers were blue."
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.
60 comments
Interesting that defining the premise as a conclusion can destroy the argument and existence of support but switching their order makes no difference (same words)
@HNelson Well, switching the order AND editing some words makes a difference. In the example JY used, he adds "So" which makes the difference. Hope that helps.
This is so very true. The Syllabus of SCOTUS rules always states the conclusion (actual ruling) and only later relays the reasons for its decisions. It's amusing how you can see this when reading the tariff ruling, for example.
@GGG If you’re someone who thoroughly enjoys reading SCOTUS opinions and has excitedly shared these with friends or family — only to be met with a blank stare — law school is probably for you. That likely applies to most people on 7Sage, ha.
@KateTheGreat I feel SEEN lol
But if the premise doesn't support the conclusion, is it not a relationship, thus not an argument?
I am finally getting around to asume that the premise is always right unless told otheriwse
Dude... they said they poop word
@Ryo omg right I forgot they're adults and allowed to curse for some reason AHAHA
It's really interesting because when you think of a conclusion, especially what was taught in earlier schooling, you think of it as the last thing to come in a paragraph/argument. It's definitely a different perspective than what I'm used to.
Anyone want to follow this lesson along with me today is my first day starting this
This is helpful I always thought the conclusion came after the premise but it can go in any order
how do you guys stay locked in. i need tips
@parleenk discipline, rather than motivation. Something i am struggling with and working on too!
Order doesn’t matter.
Chat: We may not be a cooked as I previously thought we were.
@LidwinaE.Bellla Speak for yourself, I still feel cooked!
not seeing any video just the closed captioning
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
For me, it is easier to spot a conclusion. Once I found my conclusion I like to ask "so what?" to find my premise.
Same with me that's how I tend to do it!
@yafietteame21246 same because I feel like it's easier
What I gathered was that the order has no significance in the argument. As long as I am able to pin point what a conclusion is versus a premise, then I will be able to determine if one claim supports another.
Does it matter with the conjunctions or conjunctive adverbs? I think in the example it does not matter since like "after all" seems like a concluding conjunctive adverbs. However, in other cases, would conjunctive adverbs be a good hint to identify conclusions or serve as something that tricks people taking the test?
@serene4869 After all is a common indicator of a premise!
Can we think of it as the premise talking about something specific, like tigers? The conclusion is when the statement talks about the overall category of the premise, like mammals.
The premise is specific and the conclusion is the overall.
I think what you're asking is best applicable to this situation, but there's also no definition of argument that requires the premise to strictly be specific or the conclusion to be broad.
So to clarify between this video and the last, this video is talking about arguments, where order doesn't matter. The previous video was talking about truths and order does matter?
The order also does not matter in the previous video. It is more about whether the premise provides support or increases the likelihood of the conclusion being true. However, whether that premise comes first or second doesn't matter, the support is what you have to prove.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly. In an argument, there is a premise and a conclusion. The premise supports the conclusion, and the conclusion receives support from the premise. For the LSAT, support "increases the likelihood of the truth," and the order of the premise and conclusion doesn't matter in an argument. The premise might come first, with the conclusion last, or vice versa.
Yup, I believe that is correct. The conclusion can come in the beginning, middle, or even in the end. Premises have to be there in order for there to be an argument.
yes sounds right!
perfectly put!
Just to be clear, your goal is to identify the claim, aka the conclusion, and then identify the supporting evidence for the claim like the why for the premise?
Hi! So both the premise and conclusion are claims. The premise is just the claim that supports the conclusion, while the conclusion is the claim that is being supported. The LSAT will ask you about the relationship between both claims (the premise and conclusion). And you're correct, the premise(s) would act as supporting evidence for the conclusion(s).
Let me know if I have this right. "It is wrong for countries to own nuclear weapons. After all, if used, it is likely these weapons would cause great harm to civilian populations.
Premise: If used, it is likely [nuclear weapons] would cause great harm to civilian populations.
Conclusion: It is wrong for countries to own nuclear weapons.
I'd agree. My assumption is that "owning nuclear weapons" is too broad and does not support "weapons would cause great harm. . ." I think Nuke weapons great harm → Supports → Wrong for countries to own*
And to reverse the phrasing but keep the premise and conclusion intact, one could say "If used, nuclear weapons would likely cause great harm to civilian populations. Therefore, countries are wrong to own nuclear weapons."
I think the reason why so many people get stumped on this is because in primary school we get it drilled into our heads that the conclusion should always come at the end of whatever we are reading or writing. But the reality is that substance matters far more than presentation. I believe that the importance of this lesson is that writing is an important component of the legal profession and people have varying styles and preferences. You will encounter prose that is not always intuitive. This is the LSAT's way of measuring your capacity to read and write like an attorney.
I agree, even reading this example a few lessons back I could clearly see it started with the conclusion but my brain was like wait is that allowed LOL
How do you know which one is the premise vs. conclusion ?
deleted
It's based on context. You need to find which of the statements is being supported by the other statement. Then you will find the conclusion. I hope that makes sense.
To differentiate between premise and conclusion, I've found it helpful to consider the premise as a fact and the conclusion as an opinion. However, the examples we've been working with can be tricky because the conclusions often seem likely to be true, even though they're technically opinions. For instance, take the statement: "Young kids can't drink too much coffee. Coffee has caffeine in it." In this case, it's a fact that coffee contains caffeine (with the exception of decaf, but we're working with the given sentence). The conclusion, "Young kids can't drink too much coffee," is an opinion that's being presented as a persuasive argument, supported by the factual premise about coffee containing caffeine.
to identify the premise, it has to be supporting the other claim and the conclusion has to be supported by the other claim (the premise). so, to identify the premise, you have to determine which statement makes the other one more likely to be true -- that will be your premise.
for example, industrial farming is bad for the environment. on industrial farms, the use of toxic herbicides causes weeds to develop stronger resistance to them, requiring farmers to use more toxic chemicals.
the conclusion: industrial farming is bad for the environment
the premise: on industrial farms, the use of toxic herbicides causes weeds to develop stronger resistance to them, requiring farmers to use more toxic chemicals.
this is because the second statement (on industrial farms, the use of toxic herbicides causes weeds to develop stronger resistance to them requiring farmers to use more toxic chemicals) supports the first statement that (industrial farming is bad for the environment).
in reverse, the first statement, (industrial farming is bad for the environment) is supported by the second statement that (the use of toxic herbicides on industrial farms causes weeds to develop stronger resistance to them requiring farmers to use more toxic chemicals.
i hope this makes sense and helps a little in your understanding!
This was so helpful! I just looked at pretty much every example in this comment section, and was able to easily identify premise and conclusion. Thank you!
Just to be play the devil's advocate....what about:
Argument 3: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. For example, tigers are very aggressive and can causer serious injuries to people.
Does this wording make the second Premise/Claim situation valid?
In this case, the conclusion is still the first sentence. The second sentence still supports the first sentence. The only thing that changed is the transition phrasing "for example."
If an argument should recognized by whether if there is a claim, which if true, would make another claim more likely to be true. Would it still be considered an argument even if I know the claim is untrue. I'm a bit confused since support doesn't have to be true to be considered support so I was wondering if it can still be an argument even if the support is untrue. I think I might be diving too deep into it.
Like mentioned in the video, outside knowledge is not useful on the LSAT. The goal for us taking the test is not to read an argument and to determine if the argument is true or not, instead our goal is to see if it is supported. For example, if there is an argument of: "On my walk today, I only saw blue flowers. Therefore all flowers are blue." Now, we know this argument is not true because roses exist, however that does not make this not be an argument. Like I said before, we're not trying to figure out if the argument is true, we are trying to break apart the argument into conclusion and premise. Which for this example, the conclusion is "all flowers are blue," and the premise is "on my walk today, all the flowers were blue."
@patricia._k I guess the only bit of outside knowledge we need here is the knowledge that a tiger is indeed a mammal.