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
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.
"But the test writers don't give a shit about what I want. In fact, they intentionally mix up the order of premises and conclusion in an attempt to induce confusion."
I love how that 7Sage has declared War against the LSAT and is training me to do battle . I feel as if I'm back in the Army getting ready to deploy. Love it.
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.
Another easy way to think about this — in an essay or argument, the thesis statement comes before its justification. But the thesis is, in effect, the conclusion — at least, it's the claim in the argument that requires justification by premises that offer support.
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
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.
A "conclusion" is highlighted in bold as the main word that sticks out the most. Surrounding this word are "supporting" words. The supporting words can be sideways, up side down, beneath, above, to the right, or/and to the left. Whether we like the format of the word cloud, doesn't matter. Rather, the word cloud can take different forms, but at the end of the day, the word that is highlighted at the forefront is the conclusion, and everything else is support.
bruh you just opened my mind to the possibility of multidimensional support... I just went into a deep dive on n-dimensional fuzzy logic (wayyyy out of scope for the LSAT lol) - but such logic is totally being used today for computational theory and neural networks, cool
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.
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'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*
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.
The LSAT loooooooves to do this. In LR I've gotten tripped up on the small details in wording that make the difference between a premise and conclusion.
One thing I'm going to try and do to learn that difference is verbally recognizing prem-con connections in drills until it becomes automatic. If anyone's tried this lmk how it's going!
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.
@DortheaElridge I wouldn't rely on that as a rule. I think it is best to think of it as "premises are the claims offered as reasons and conclusions are the claims being supported". For example, John is a bachelor therefore, John is unmarried. These claims both lack detail.
I'm a bit confused from the last example from the previous lesson where the phrase was switched and the support was not "valid".
In the previous lesson, "Premise": Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. and "Conclusion" Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
The phrasing in this example is a bit different, "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. So, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
In the previous lesson, the phrasing was also different slightly with the word "So". (I'm also studying in conjunction with the LSAT Trainer by Mike Kim and I know he mentioned how important these subtleties are)
But just wanted to confirm that the main differences between the claim in the last lesson vs. this one is the wording "So" and also the fact that the argument is the same because the phrasing of each claim makes it evident as to which is the P(remise) Claim: "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" and the C(onclusion) Claim: "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
There's a big difference between Argument 1 and Argument 2 in the following example, even if they're ordered in the same way.
Premise: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet
Argument 1: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. So, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Premise: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet
Conclusion: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people
Argument 2: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. After all, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Argument 1 is valid, but Argument 2 is not. Argument 1's wording uses the correct premise to support the conclusion. Argument 2's wording tries to support its conclusion with a premise that doesn't actually make the conclusion more convincing.
Based on the idea that we cannot assume truth from our own experiences. How deep into the weeds do we have to go with like terms. We say that not all mammals are suitable pets and then we support it with the way Tigers act. Aren’t we running the assumption that we all know tigers are mammals? They are, of course, but is there a level to this where we would need to explain the supporting statement further such as “tigers are mammals and they hurt people all the time”.
If we used a less obvious example like:
“Soda is an unhealthy beverage. Studies on regular Pepsi drinkers show serious effects of gut health.”
Now do we assume soda as Pepsi, and vice versa? It seems like the relationship is more like the USA/New York one. Or at least can be argued that way. If I was Coca Cola I’d be likely to rebut the definition of soda entirely and bring up how if Pepsi is defined as a type of soda then Coca Cola is not soda, or something along those lines.
68 comments
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
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.
"But the test writers don't give a shit about what I want. In fact, they intentionally mix up the order of premises and conclusion in an attempt to induce confusion."
I love how that 7Sage has declared War against the LSAT and is training me to do battle . I feel as if I'm back in the Army getting ready to deploy. Love it.
Chat: We may not be a cooked as I previously thought we were.
@LidwinaE.Bellla Speak for yourself, I still feel cooked!
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.
Another easy way to think about this — in an essay or argument, the thesis statement comes before its justification. But the thesis is, in effect, the conclusion — at least, it's the claim in the argument that requires justification by premises that offer support.
I appreciate you sharing this example. It lit a light bulb in my brain!
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
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.
yes sounds right!
perfectly put!
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.
An interesting exercise: Think of a word cloud.
A "conclusion" is highlighted in bold as the main word that sticks out the most. Surrounding this word are "supporting" words. The supporting words can be sideways, up side down, beneath, above, to the right, or/and to the left. Whether we like the format of the word cloud, doesn't matter. Rather, the word cloud can take different forms, but at the end of the day, the word that is highlighted at the forefront is the conclusion, and everything else is support.
bruh you just opened my mind to the possibility of multidimensional support... I just went into a deep dive on n-dimensional fuzzy logic (wayyyy out of scope for the LSAT lol) - but such logic is totally being used today for computational theory and neural networks, cool
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.
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'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*
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
@GGG omg you get me twin
this cleared that up for me.
But if the premise doesn't support the conclusion, is it not a relationship, thus not an argument?
Dude... they said they poop word
@Ryo omg right I forgot they're adults and allowed to curse for some reason AHAHA
The LSAT loooooooves to do this. In LR I've gotten tripped up on the small details in wording that make the difference between a premise and conclusion.
One thing I'm going to try and do to learn that difference is verbally recognizing prem-con connections in drills until it becomes automatic. If anyone's tried this lmk how it's going!
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.
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!
My thinking is the premise= details that the conclusion doesn’t have.
@DortheaElridge I wouldn't rely on that as a rule. I think it is best to think of it as "premises are the claims offered as reasons and conclusions are the claims being supported". For example, John is a bachelor therefore, John is unmarried. These claims both lack detail.
I am finally getting around to asume that the premise is always right unless told otheriwse
@PaulaTrapella I was wondering the same thing...
Order doesn’t matter.
I'm a bit confused from the last example from the previous lesson where the phrase was switched and the support was not "valid".
In the previous lesson, "Premise": Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. and "Conclusion" Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
The phrasing in this example is a bit different, "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. So, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
In the previous lesson, the phrasing was also different slightly with the word "So". (I'm also studying in conjunction with the LSAT Trainer by Mike Kim and I know he mentioned how important these subtleties are)
But just wanted to confirm that the main differences between the claim in the last lesson vs. this one is the wording "So" and also the fact that the argument is the same because the phrasing of each claim makes it evident as to which is the P(remise) Claim: "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" and the C(onclusion) Claim: "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet."
Would love anyone's insight!
You've totally got it right.
There's a big difference between Argument 1 and Argument 2 in the following example, even if they're ordered in the same way.
Premise: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people
Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet
Argument 1: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. So, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Premise: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet
Conclusion: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people
Argument 2: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. After all, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
Argument 1 is valid, but Argument 2 is not. Argument 1's wording uses the correct premise to support the conclusion. Argument 2's wording tries to support its conclusion with a premise that doesn't actually make the conclusion more convincing.
#help #feedback
Based on the idea that we cannot assume truth from our own experiences. How deep into the weeds do we have to go with like terms. We say that not all mammals are suitable pets and then we support it with the way Tigers act. Aren’t we running the assumption that we all know tigers are mammals? They are, of course, but is there a level to this where we would need to explain the supporting statement further such as “tigers are mammals and they hurt people all the time”.
If we used a less obvious example like:
“Soda is an unhealthy beverage. Studies on regular Pepsi drinkers show serious effects of gut health.”
Now do we assume soda as Pepsi, and vice versa? It seems like the relationship is more like the USA/New York one. Or at least can be argued that way. If I was Coca Cola I’d be likely to rebut the definition of soda entirely and bring up how if Pepsi is defined as a type of soda then Coca Cola is not soda, or something along those lines.
Maybe I’m rambling