If anyone is struggling, I’m finding it easier to look for what I think is the conclusion first and then check to see if it’s being supported by another claim. If yes, you’ve now figured out the premise and conclusion and if no, it’s probably not an argument.
Studying for my LSAT again and starting from the basics. Felt a little rusty at first and struggled on a few of the early examples but once i remembered this simple trick i was quick at identifying if it was or was not an argument. This also helps on the actual exam the quick you can identify arguments and premise/conclusion the quicker you will be able to answer the questions
@INTEROBANGIN I also agree; great tip! ID'ing the conclusion early in the problem can serve as a helpful shortcut for seeing whether I have any supporting claims to work with. If not, I immediately know it's likely not an argument. Plus, I think it can help me from falling down the rabbit hole of overanalyzing a passage that isn't even an argument.
I agree! i learned in a symbolic logic class that looking for the conclusion, or what is trying to be proved, is the easiest way to figure out if its an argument and what the premises are
The last problem also fits the X, Y, Z structure. Just in a different order. So instead of "Most X are Y. All Y are Z. Thus, most X are Z.", the problem is structured backwards "Thus, most X are Z. All Y are Z. Most X are Y."
Most (X) are (Y): "Most chefs ((X) have extensive culinary knowledge (Y)."
All (Y) are (Z): "All chefs with extensive culinary knowledge (Y) can make a delicious omelet (Z)."
Conclusion (Most (X) are (Z): "Most chefs (X) can make a delicious omelet (Z)."
I got 5/7 here however after reading the answers and reviewing the video...the lightbulb went off and to me that's the whole point of being here! Glad to be here! Learning and working towards a brighter future for myself!
@LETHEFLINWIN I also got 5/7. I definitely agree, I find it so useful to really take the time to think about the question and if I got it wrong would look at the short answers and sections of the video elaborating on it.
Animal communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different species throughout history. "So", biologists have conducted many comparative analyses of animal communication across various species from various habitats.
This doesn't make sense. Let's try it the other way.
Biologists have conducted many comparative analyses of animal communication across various species from various habitats. "So", animal communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different species throughout history.
This also doesn't make sense.
The claim that biologists conducting many comparative analyses of animal communication being more true doesn't make the claim that animal communication is a universal phenomenon more true.
Remember to not ask yourself if the claim is true based on your knowledge of the world, but if the truth of one claim increases the likelihood of the truth of another claim.
A helpful tip for some people that still struggle to determine what the conclusion and premise(s) are: ask yourself why, because.
The why is the conclusion and the because are the premises that support it. When looking at an argument like the very first one given about blue eyes, ask yourself, why is it that it is more than likely that blue eyes are determined by genetics? Because a recent study found that most people with blue eyes have a relative with blue eyes AND those without blue eyes are less likely to have a relative with blue eyes. Sometimes I use this trick when I am really stumped because if you can't provide an answer for the because, then you know you don't have the correct conclusion figured out either. You can use this method as trial and error over and over changing what is the why and what is the because until it makes logical sense with LSAT logic and not our sense of "real world" logic.
What I've learned from question 6 is that, if it makes my brain hurt, its because there is something wrong with the paragraph. I got the answer correct, but I think I re-read that paragraph 5 times before I concluded that none of it made sense because there was no supporting evidence. lol
I’m so terrible at this lmao, and I’m quite scared of how my LSAT self-study journey will go henceforth because identifying the premise and the conclusion are skills I need. But then again, I have months to prepare, so I think I just need to calm down. It’s just that I don’t like being terrible at simple things. Hopefully I get the hang of things.
@AtlegangK Yes, hang in there. I was feeling discouraged too and looking at everyone's responses gives me a bit of hope because we are all going through the same thing!
I found it helpful to remember that an assertion IS NOT necessarily an argument. You can assert something without providing evidence to support that assertion. As soon as I made the distinction between an argument and an assertion in my head, it was way easier to identify which examples above weren't arguments, and why.
#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.
@bhabel814 I felt the same way but I understood the issue to be the act of "conducting many comparative analyses" is not enough to prove the claim. Maybe it would be if they indicated some result but without any answers but we don't know if it does or not.
This is an example I think is analogous (correct me if I am wrong here please):
Conclusion: The color yellow makes people happy.
Premise: Scientists have conducted studies that show brain activity when shown different colors.
@GennaBishop I would usually agree, but the fact of there being "traditional languages across regions and time" is, by itself, a conclusive answer to the liklihood of whether or not human communication universally exists across regions and time.
In other words, your analogy is more so that:
Premise: Scientists have conducted studies that show brain activity when shown different colors.
Conclusion: Brain activity is universally influenceable through the use of color.
Seems like a good way to establish "support" is to ask of a phrase or sentence: "How do we know that?" and if nothing else in the prompt speaks to that, then we don't have an argument. Am I off-track with that thought?
543 comments
If anyone is struggling, I’m finding it easier to look for what I think is the conclusion first and then check to see if it’s being supported by another claim. If yes, you’ve now figured out the premise and conclusion and if no, it’s probably not an argument.
great tip!
This was really helpful, thank you.
Studying for my LSAT again and starting from the basics. Felt a little rusty at first and struggled on a few of the early examples but once i remembered this simple trick i was quick at identifying if it was or was not an argument. This also helps on the actual exam the quick you can identify arguments and premise/conclusion the quicker you will be able to answer the questions
@INTEROBANGIN I also agree; great tip! ID'ing the conclusion early in the problem can serve as a helpful shortcut for seeing whether I have any supporting claims to work with. If not, I immediately know it's likely not an argument. Plus, I think it can help me from falling down the rabbit hole of overanalyzing a passage that isn't even an argument.
@INTEROBANGIN thanks!!
I agree! i learned in a symbolic logic class that looking for the conclusion, or what is trying to be proved, is the easiest way to figure out if its an argument and what the premises are
Can someone like my comment so I can come back PLEASE!!!!!
@marikitten03
I may be a little late, but here you go.
I need to come back and watch this again. Can someone please like my comment?
chat i am so cooked
@JoannaClohessy dawg same
@JoannaClohessy SAME
@JoannaClohessy LOCK IN YOU'RE GONNA DO SO GOOD
It's not about where you started. It's about how you finish. You got this buddy.
A tip is to focus on finding the conclusion then finding the premise (support).
Getting these correct the first time through has me feeling like I have already learned something. For that, I am immensely grateful.
me too!!!
Me three!!
Me four!!
Now chat, is this an argument??
Can someone hold me pls, I'm getting scared
we're still in the early study days! don't be discouraged :)
The last problem also fits the X, Y, Z structure. Just in a different order. So instead of "Most X are Y. All Y are Z. Thus, most X are Z.", the problem is structured backwards "Thus, most X are Z. All Y are Z. Most X are Y."
Most (X) are (Y): "Most chefs ((X) have extensive culinary knowledge (Y)."
All (Y) are (Z): "All chefs with extensive culinary knowledge (Y) can make a delicious omelet (Z)."
Conclusion (Most (X) are (Z): "Most chefs (X) can make a delicious omelet (Z)."
@Ihi So, if this were an actual question, the answer would just be whichever of these 3 segments is absent from the Stim?
Say, it was a properly inferred Q:
What can be properly inferred about most chefs?
All chefs with extensive culinary knowledge can make a delicious omelet and most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge.
yo bruh lsat be tough #fr
I got 5/7 here however after reading the answers and reviewing the video...the lightbulb went off and to me that's the whole point of being here! Glad to be here! Learning and working towards a brighter future for myself!
@LETHEFLINWIN I also got 5/7. I definitely agree, I find it so useful to really take the time to think about the question and if I got it wrong would look at the short answers and sections of the video elaborating on it.
Yall don't let this discourage you we got thissss, it feels confusing now but that is just your brain growing muscles
@TaraOfWaterdeep needed this!
Just noticed that question 7 follows the pattern we covered in Spanish 101 question.
@aikol.iva This helped me understand that question so much better, thank you!
Try using the "So Test" here.
Animal communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different species throughout history. "So", biologists have conducted many comparative analyses of animal communication across various species from various habitats.
This doesn't make sense. Let's try it the other way.
Biologists have conducted many comparative analyses of animal communication across various species from various habitats. "So", animal communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different species throughout history.
This also doesn't make sense.
The claim that biologists conducting many comparative analyses of animal communication being more true doesn't make the claim that animal communication is a universal phenomenon more true.
Remember to not ask yourself if the claim is true based on your knowledge of the world, but if the truth of one claim increases the likelihood of the truth of another claim.
Hope that helps.
Great way to look at these arguments! Thanks!
question 6 was low-key tricky because of the repetition of terminology making it seem there's some sort of relation
please bring back the highlighter/underlining function!!
A helpful tip for some people that still struggle to determine what the conclusion and premise(s) are: ask yourself why, because.
The why is the conclusion and the because are the premises that support it. When looking at an argument like the very first one given about blue eyes, ask yourself, why is it that it is more than likely that blue eyes are determined by genetics? Because a recent study found that most people with blue eyes have a relative with blue eyes AND those without blue eyes are less likely to have a relative with blue eyes. Sometimes I use this trick when I am really stumped because if you can't provide an answer for the because, then you know you don't have the correct conclusion figured out either. You can use this method as trial and error over and over changing what is the why and what is the because until it makes logical sense with LSAT logic and not our sense of "real world" logic.
What I've learned from question 6 is that, if it makes my brain hurt, its because there is something wrong with the paragraph. I got the answer correct, but I think I re-read that paragraph 5 times before I concluded that none of it made sense because there was no supporting evidence. lol
For the first time since I graduated college I am happy I majored in philosophy
@HenryLehmann I wanted to take philosophy but ended up majoring in Poli Sci. I'm happy i took poli sci lol
I’m so terrible at this lmao, and I’m quite scared of how my LSAT self-study journey will go henceforth because identifying the premise and the conclusion are skills I need. But then again, I have months to prepare, so I think I just need to calm down. It’s just that I don’t like being terrible at simple things. Hopefully I get the hang of things.
@AtlegangK hang in there dawg im in the same boat
@AtlegangK ME TOO
@AtlegangK Yes, hang in there. I was feeling discouraged too and looking at everyone's responses gives me a bit of hope because we are all going through the same thing!
I found it helpful to remember that an assertion IS NOT necessarily an argument. You can assert something without providing evidence to support that assertion. As soon as I made the distinction between an argument and an assertion in my head, it was way easier to identify which examples above weren't arguments, and why.
true
Thank God, 7/7 correct. What helped me understand on my own was "Conclusion=comment" "Premise=Evidence".
@MSharon10 I got 7/7 correct too but I like the way you put it ! I will have to remember that.
#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.
@bhabel814 I felt the same way but I understood the issue to be the act of "conducting many comparative analyses" is not enough to prove the claim. Maybe it would be if they indicated some result but without any answers but we don't know if it does or not.
This is an example I think is analogous (correct me if I am wrong here please):
Conclusion: The color yellow makes people happy.
Premise: Scientists have conducted studies that show brain activity when shown different colors.
@GennaBishop I would usually agree, but the fact of there being "traditional languages across regions and time" is, by itself, a conclusive answer to the liklihood of whether or not human communication universally exists across regions and time.
In other words, your analogy is more so that:
Premise: Scientists have conducted studies that show brain activity when shown different colors.
Conclusion: Brain activity is universally influenceable through the use of color.
Got all of them right, though when i'm doing a practice exam I panic due to the timing and hardly pay attention to these details
Seems like a good way to establish "support" is to ask of a phrase or sentence: "How do we know that?" and if nothing else in the prompt speaks to that, then we don't have an argument. Am I off-track with that thought?
@mattrettig No, this sounds pretty solid.