This is potentially dangerous but I kinda simplified the questions like the forbidden jar. I think part of the LSAT is trying to trick you with word play. If this was a normal conversation it would be the kid knew he did wrong; since he has to ask for them. He just took them without asking!
Is it bad to think that the "smaller pool" is the premise and the "bigger pool" being the conclusion? Like the first one being about eyes and relatives and the overarching theme being genetics.
For question 4, I initially thought that the other claims were not sufficient support for the conclusion "(A) He knows he did something wrong". Upon re-examining, I came to the conclusion that "(B) The kid took a cookie from the forbidden jar without permission" establishes the "wrong" action that the kid performed and "(C) He knows that doing what is not permitted without first seeking permission is wrong" establishes that he had prior knowledge that doing something forbidden is wrong without getting permission first if we assume that statement (C) is true. Again, assuming (B) and (C) are both true, then the kid had prior knowledge that the action was wrong and yet still carried it out. This means (B) and (C) act together as the premise to support the conclusion (A).
In my opinion, (B) on its own is not enough to act as a premise, and if it was only (A) and (B), then it would not be considered an argument. The addition of (C) makes the argument.
Is this correct?
Also, my reasoning heavily depends on the assumption that (C) is true.
Are we to always assume the provided information is true unless instructed otherwise?
For Question 7, can we also say "...most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge" is the conclusion? Because it is also supported by the other two claims.
But what if the kid didn't know the cookie jar was "forbidden"? Nowhere does it say that the kid KNEW/SUSPECTED that this particular action was forbidden, even if he knows that, GENERALLY, forbidden actions without permission are wrong.
I guess the takeaway is that it IS an argument, but is not a STRONG argument. The fact that the kid took the "forbidden cookie" without permission coupled with the fact that he knows forbidden actions without permission are wrong makes it MORE LIKELY (but not CERTAIN) that the kid knows he did something wrong ... right?
I was able to quickly understand the concept of an argument and within 30 seconds or less identify if an argument was present. I only got one question wrong. But went and reread it a few times to understand where I went wrong. I'm going to copy and paste my skill builder questions to another file to see where I trip up at the most and understand any personal biases I may have while reading the prompted questions.
I really struggled with Question 1 and 4. This is for those that are similar to me and for my better understanding.
For Question 1, I wrote,
Premise: Blue eyes are largely genetic.
Conclusion: Therefore, most blue-eyed people have blue-eyed relatives.
This premise does NOT increase the likelihood of the conclusion.
Because:
Even if a trait is genetic, it may skip generations.
Relatives may not express the trait.
Genetic determination does not guarantee family resemblance patterns like that.
So the genetics claim does not strongly increase the likelihood (the truth) of the precise pattern described whereas;
Premises:
Most blue-eyed people have blue-eyed relatives.
Most non-blue-eyed people don’t have blue-eyed relatives.
Conclusion:
Blue eyes are largely determined by genetics.
This premises increase the likelihood of the conclusion because if a trait consistently runs in families, that makes a genetic explanation more probable.
For Question 4, I wrote
Premises:
He knows that doing what is not permitted without first seeking permission is wrong.
Conclusion:
He knows he did something wrong
I didn't know where to place what turned out to be the 2nd premise: The kid took a cookie from the forbidden jar without permission.
Premise 1:
The kid took a cookie from the forbidden jar without permission.
He did something not permitted. Premise 1 alone was not enough to support the conclusion. Let's say he took a cookie without permission. But suppose he thinks it's not wrong. Then I cannot conclude "He knows he did something wrong." This action alone did not support the conclusion.
Premise 2:
He knows that doing what is not permitted without permission is wrong.
He knows the rule. But Premise 2 alone also was not enough to support the conclusion. Let's say he knew taking cookies without permission is wrong. But from this sentence I cannot know if he did take a cookie. The claim only confirms he knows the rule. Knowing the rule alone does not support the conclusion: "He knows he did something wrong."
The Conclusion: "He knows he did something wrong."
This was about his self-knowledge. Not just that something was wrong. Not just that he knows rules. But that he knows his action was wrong.
Now when I supposed BOTH are true and combined:
He took a cookie without permission.
He knows that taking things without permission is wrong.
Only then did it support the conclusion and made sense to say "He knows he did something wrong." He did something wrong and knew actions of that type are wrong.
I am confused about why the tiger example from last lesson is treated as an argument while the linguistics example in #3 is not.
In the tiger case, the conclusion that not every mammal is suitable as a pet requires the unstated assumption that animals which are very aggressive and can seriously injure people are not suitable pets. That assumption is not explicitly stated, yet you guys still say it's a premise supporting a conclusion.
In the linguistics case, it seems similarly reasonable to supply an unstated assumption that comparative analyses of languages across many regions and eras support the claim that human communication is universal. If you conduct an analysis on something, don't you have to discover it in the first place, meaning it has existed???
I am struggling to see why supplying an unstated assumption is allowed in the first case but not in the second.
Do all sentences need to be a premise or a conclusion for it to be an argument? What if 2/4 are premises and 1/4 is a conclusion but the other 1 is neither?
#3 got me- I thought it was an argument because it seems to logically follow that if linguistic studies have been done across different regions and times, that it could therefore be concluded that language and communication is a universal human phenomenon. I do see the flaws in the argument, but I still see it as more of that- a flawed argument, rather than not an argument at all.
I got all correct, except #6. My reasoning for believing it was an argument was this...Premise: If an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked. Premise: Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects. Conclusion: All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places. How could that not be seen as an argument? Couldn't we tie in the first and last sentence? All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places. But, if an intellectual place is disorganized, is it not well-stocked. ...Meaning, libraries and bookstores, if disorganized, are also not well stocked. I don't see how it's not an argument.
Question 2 got me, I was confident it was not an argument until I watched the video and realized I could break up the sentence and make part of it the conclusion. For some reason I thought it had to be the complete sentence. Good to know!
If I get all of these right, and had the correct reasoning, should I watch the video? In the future if (big if) I get all questions on something like this right with the correct reasoning, should I watch the videos?
Questions 1 and 2 were very hard for me because my brain wants to say that the statements "A recent study found that...." is going to give me valid, truthful and objective information. I totally understood the premise and conclusions in the following questions but it's like I don't want to believe that something that feels like straight recitation of facts could be a real argument.
For question 6, if there was an additional sentence like ," Therefore, libraries and bookstores can be disorganized." Would that make it a conclusion and therefore an argument?
Yall don't let this discourage you we got thissss, it feels confusing now but that is just your brain growing muscles
21
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.
425 comments
This is potentially dangerous but I kinda simplified the questions like the forbidden jar. I think part of the LSAT is trying to trick you with word play. If this was a normal conversation it would be the kid knew he did wrong; since he has to ask for them. He just took them without asking!
Is it bad to think that the "smaller pool" is the premise and the "bigger pool" being the conclusion? Like the first one being about eyes and relatives and the overarching theme being genetics.
It is misleading the way some of these arguments present the conclusion in the middle of a sentence
For question 4, I initially thought that the other claims were not sufficient support for the conclusion "(A) He knows he did something wrong". Upon re-examining, I came to the conclusion that "(B) The kid took a cookie from the forbidden jar without permission" establishes the "wrong" action that the kid performed and "(C) He knows that doing what is not permitted without first seeking permission is wrong" establishes that he had prior knowledge that doing something forbidden is wrong without getting permission first if we assume that statement (C) is true. Again, assuming (B) and (C) are both true, then the kid had prior knowledge that the action was wrong and yet still carried it out. This means (B) and (C) act together as the premise to support the conclusion (A).
In my opinion, (B) on its own is not enough to act as a premise, and if it was only (A) and (B), then it would not be considered an argument. The addition of (C) makes the argument.
Is this correct?
Also, my reasoning heavily depends on the assumption that (C) is true.
Are we to always assume the provided information is true unless instructed otherwise?
Thanks!
For Question 7, can we also say "...most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge" is the conclusion? Because it is also supported by the other two claims.
But what if the kid didn't know the cookie jar was "forbidden"? Nowhere does it say that the kid KNEW/SUSPECTED that this particular action was forbidden, even if he knows that, GENERALLY, forbidden actions without permission are wrong.
I guess the takeaway is that it IS an argument, but is not a STRONG argument. The fact that the kid took the "forbidden cookie" without permission coupled with the fact that he knows forbidden actions without permission are wrong makes it MORE LIKELY (but not CERTAIN) that the kid knows he did something wrong ... right?
I was able to quickly understand the concept of an argument and within 30 seconds or less identify if an argument was present. I only got one question wrong. But went and reread it a few times to understand where I went wrong. I'm going to copy and paste my skill builder questions to another file to see where I trip up at the most and understand any personal biases I may have while reading the prompted questions.
I really struggled with Question 1 and 4. This is for those that are similar to me and for my better understanding.
For Question 1, I wrote,
Premise: Blue eyes are largely genetic.
Conclusion: Therefore, most blue-eyed people have blue-eyed relatives.
This premise does NOT increase the likelihood of the conclusion.
Because:
Even if a trait is genetic, it may skip generations.
Relatives may not express the trait.
Genetic determination does not guarantee family resemblance patterns like that.
So the genetics claim does not strongly increase the likelihood (the truth) of the precise pattern described whereas;
Premises:
Most blue-eyed people have blue-eyed relatives.
Most non-blue-eyed people don’t have blue-eyed relatives.
Conclusion:
Blue eyes are largely determined by genetics.
This premises increase the likelihood of the conclusion because if a trait consistently runs in families, that makes a genetic explanation more probable.
For Question 4, I wrote
Premises:
He knows that doing what is not permitted without first seeking permission is wrong.
Conclusion:
He knows he did something wrong
I didn't know where to place what turned out to be the 2nd premise: The kid took a cookie from the forbidden jar without permission.
Premise 1:
He did something not permitted. Premise 1 alone was not enough to support the conclusion. Let's say he took a cookie without permission. But suppose he thinks it's not wrong. Then I cannot conclude "He knows he did something wrong." This action alone did not support the conclusion.
Premise 2:
He knows the rule. But Premise 2 alone also was not enough to support the conclusion. Let's say he knew taking cookies without permission is wrong. But from this sentence I cannot know if he did take a cookie. The claim only confirms he knows the rule. Knowing the rule alone does not support the conclusion: "He knows he did something wrong."
The Conclusion: "He knows he did something wrong."
This was about his self-knowledge. Not just that something was wrong. Not just that he knows rules. But that he knows his action was wrong.
Now when I supposed BOTH are true and combined:
He took a cookie without permission.
He knows that taking things without permission is wrong.
Only then did it support the conclusion and made sense to say "He knows he did something wrong." He did something wrong and knew actions of that type are wrong.
hmm this is really hard, if you really think thru you can get all though
I am confused about why the tiger example from last lesson is treated as an argument while the linguistics example in #3 is not.
In the tiger case, the conclusion that not every mammal is suitable as a pet requires the unstated assumption that animals which are very aggressive and can seriously injure people are not suitable pets. That assumption is not explicitly stated, yet you guys still say it's a premise supporting a conclusion.
In the linguistics case, it seems similarly reasonable to supply an unstated assumption that comparative analyses of languages across many regions and eras support the claim that human communication is universal. If you conduct an analysis on something, don't you have to discover it in the first place, meaning it has existed???
I am struggling to see why supplying an unstated assumption is allowed in the first case but not in the second.
Do all sentences need to be a premise or a conclusion for it to be an argument? What if 2/4 are premises and 1/4 is a conclusion but the other 1 is neither?
I really thought I was nailing these premises and conclusions. Turns out I am not ughhhh i'm trying so hard. I know its still early but this sucks
#3 got me- I thought it was an argument because it seems to logically follow that if linguistic studies have been done across different regions and times, that it could therefore be concluded that language and communication is a universal human phenomenon. I do see the flaws in the argument, but I still see it as more of that- a flawed argument, rather than not an argument at all.
I got all correct, except #6. My reasoning for believing it was an argument was this...Premise: If an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked. Premise: Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects. Conclusion: All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places. How could that not be seen as an argument? Couldn't we tie in the first and last sentence? All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places. But, if an intellectual place is disorganized, is it not well-stocked. ...Meaning, libraries and bookstores, if disorganized, are also not well stocked. I don't see how it's not an argument.
Question 2 got me, I was confident it was not an argument until I watched the video and realized I could break up the sentence and make part of it the conclusion. For some reason I thought it had to be the complete sentence. Good to know!
If I get all of these right, and had the correct reasoning, should I watch the video? In the future if (big if) I get all questions on something like this right with the correct reasoning, should I watch the videos?
This fr took me like an hour to do
Can someone hold me pls, I'm getting scared
Questions 1 and 2 were very hard for me because my brain wants to say that the statements "A recent study found that...." is going to give me valid, truthful and objective information. I totally understood the premise and conclusions in the following questions but it's like I don't want to believe that something that feels like straight recitation of facts could be a real argument.
For question 6, if there was an additional sentence like ," Therefore, libraries and bookstores can be disorganized." Would that make it a conclusion and therefore an argument?
I find it useful to CTRL+u to underline a conclusion and then see if the premise supports it
we're still in the early study days! don't be discouraged :)
Well, I just got through day 1 and still cant tell y'all which ones are arguments and which are NOT lol
For the first time since I graduated college I am happy I majored in philosophy
Yall don't let this discourage you we got thissss, it feels confusing now but that is just your brain growing muscles