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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
"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.
19
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
56 comments
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.
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
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
Order doesn’t matter.
Chat: We may not be a cooked as I previously thought we were.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 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.
How do you know which one is the premise vs. conclusion ?
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?
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.
"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.