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!
@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.
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
65 comments
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!
this cleared that up for me.
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.
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
@PaulaTrapella I was wondering the same thing...
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.
yes sounds right!
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.
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