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.
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."
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.
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 "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.
10
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!
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.
43 comments
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.
Do the words sign posting around the premise and conclusion change whether they are a premise or conclusion?
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!
#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
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.
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.