@ShaniceManning It would be a conclusion because the premise is saying that people with blue eyes have a relative with blue eyes (its inferred that genetics play a role in a person having blue eyes). Those people with no relatives with blue eyes will not be having blue eyes supporting the idea that blue eyes is determined by genetics. It's tricky at first.
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
6 got me ngl and for 7 I didn't know it was an argument but when I read that it was I correctly answered what the premise and conclusions were without looking.
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 don't Understand question 3. The fact that there have been comparative analyses of languages from various eras is supporting the conclusion that communication is a universal phenomenon existed from across different civilizations over time. The mere presence of there being languages from various eras is supporting at least in the slightest, that communication is universal phenomenon that has existed from across different civilizations over time.
@OmarKhayat I think it is because they just conducted an analysis, they found nothing, so basically there is nothing in that statement to prove the first part of the statement which would’ve been the conclusion. It just states a general fact. If you understand basketball it would be like saying Michael Jordan is the greatest of all time. Basketball analysts have conducted deep analysis. Nothing in my second statement helps make the Jordan being the GOAT more true.
@OmarKhayat also only read the argument how it is never being outside information, just whatever is said and if it is reasonable to conclude something.
@OmarKhayat This was the one I got wrong too. And I 100% agree with you, but maybe we're reading too much into it? I can see how if it was "Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time. Linguists have discovered the existence of traditional languages from various regions and eras." Or if you took out "of traditional languages". Because then it could be a comparative analysis of something besides communication. But I agree, saying "comparative analyses" implies to me that there are languages across various regions and eras, which means across different civilizations over time.
@OmarKhayat I got this one wrong too and had the exact same line of reasoning. From what I can see from JY's explanation, the problem isn't the end of the sentence, but specifically what it emphasizes.
We're focusing on the "languages from various regions and eras" part of the premise and the "existed across different civilizations over time" part of the conclusion. Problem is, these are only small parts of both statements.
The strong claim in our conclusion is
Human communication is a universal phenomenon
The emphasis in our premise/claim is
Linguists have conducted comparative analyses of traditional languages.
If you break it down to these strong emphases, they no longer have any kind of supportive relationship. Even adding the connection we noticed from the various languages, regions, and areas isn't enough to make part A of the conclusion more likely to be true.
Hope this helps! Certainly helped me to write out and explain to myself haha
I got all of them correct except q#3. I couldn't understand it and maybe I still don't. Initially, the statement on human communication being universal etc. was my supposed conclusion and the linguist analysis was the premise because the linguist had languages from various regions and eras to study would mean that human communication has existed across different civilizations overtime. I think what makes it wrong is the word universally. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I think when universally is used it translates to every language in this instance. So the supposed premise of" linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras" does not support the supposed conclusion that is the first sentence. Because this is just some or many not proof that human communication is a universal phenomenon. What do you guys think? If not then what exactly makes this question not an argument?
Im confused about q3, I had believed it was an argument as if linguists conducted analysis of languages from different regions and eras that should mean human communication existed across different civilizations over time. I understand im wrong if the word "universal" means every civilization as the following statement doesnt include every civilization but then I dont understand how changing "conducted" to "discovered" would make it an argument as the fact that linguists have "conducted" "comparative analyses" of multiple traditional languages from various regions and eras means those languages had to have existed and been discovered.
1 got me since it was my first one identifying, and 2 i could identify it was an argument but needed to clarify the premise and conclusion. but i got the hang of it for the rest of them 😁
@unknown number 7 is pretty similar to the most x are y and all y are z, so most x are z argument discussed in the first lessons. Most chefs (x) have extensive culinary knowledge (y). All chefs with extensive culinary knowledge (y) can make a delicious omelet (z). So, most chefs (x) can make a delicious omelet (z).
Reading the comments I see as though I might be a little behind, because it seems as though I may have been the only to get tripped up on question 6. I though it was an argument.
I though the conclusion would be: All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.
The premise: Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books.
I see that I was wrong and I also got tripped up a tad bit on questions 1 just a lil, I had the premise and conclusion confused with each other. So I guess 5/7.
@Krender don't worry abt it. This is one of the first lessons lol. I only started yesterday and I'm sure you haven't been at this for long so don't get too in your head!
I think I am just a little confused by #3 and #6 because we talked about in the video that if there were "connecting words" then it would be argument. But what if there are no connecting/indicating words to show that it would be a premise/conclusion. Are we just supposed to be on the lookout for indicator words to ensure that it is an argument.
@JuliaSchroeder Connecting words are a good indicator that an argument is being made but the content surrounding the connections needs to be relative. I could say, "My cat hasn't eaten lately. This means she's old." Which contains both a premise and a conclusion but that premise doesn't support that conclusion.
So basically on the LSAT. An argument is an argument IF the author believes it's an argument. The premise does not necessarily need to logically support the conclusion, but if the author thinks the premise supports the conclusion, then it is an argument. Just not a very good one.
@InderpalSingh From what I have gathered from the comments, it sounds like some level of logical sense still matters for an argument. I can't say "my fish is healthy, because i walked my dog this morning." Even though it sounds like an argument due to the connecting word, it is not reasonable that these statements support each other. Someone lmk if i am wrong about this
506 comments
For Question 1, my thought process went like this : Premise: First two sentences but___ Even if it is true, it doesnt support the conclusion
Conclusion: This suggests sentence
No not an argument.
But I was wrong. Can someone help?
@ShaniceManning It would be a conclusion because the premise is saying that people with blue eyes have a relative with blue eyes (its inferred that genetics play a role in a person having blue eyes). Those people with no relatives with blue eyes will not be having blue eyes supporting the idea that blue eyes is determined by genetics. It's tricky at first.
i got 2/7 correct : (
Are non-arguments, such as in Q6, common within LSAT stimuli?
On the LSAT LR, are non-arguments such as Q6 common in certain stimuli?
Hi @EmEl , I hope all is well. From my studying, Q6 fits closely to what a "flaw question" stimuli would look like on an actual LSAT.
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
6 got me ngl and for 7 I didn't know it was an argument but when I read that it was I correctly answered what the premise and conclusions were without looking.
question 6 was low-key tricky because of the repetition of terminology making it seem there's some sort of relation
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 don't Understand question 3. The fact that there have been comparative analyses of languages from various eras is supporting the conclusion that communication is a universal phenomenon existed from across different civilizations over time. The mere presence of there being languages from various eras is supporting at least in the slightest, that communication is universal phenomenon that has existed from across different civilizations over time.
@OmarKhayat I think it is because they just conducted an analysis, they found nothing, so basically there is nothing in that statement to prove the first part of the statement which would’ve been the conclusion. It just states a general fact. If you understand basketball it would be like saying Michael Jordan is the greatest of all time. Basketball analysts have conducted deep analysis. Nothing in my second statement helps make the Jordan being the GOAT more true.
@OmarKhayat also only read the argument how it is never being outside information, just whatever is said and if it is reasonable to conclude something.
@OmarKhayat This was the one I got wrong too. And I 100% agree with you, but maybe we're reading too much into it? I can see how if it was "Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time. Linguists have discovered the existence of traditional languages from various regions and eras." Or if you took out "of traditional languages". Because then it could be a comparative analysis of something besides communication. But I agree, saying "comparative analyses" implies to me that there are languages across various regions and eras, which means across different civilizations over time.
@OmarKhayat I got this one wrong too and had the exact same line of reasoning. From what I can see from JY's explanation, the problem isn't the end of the sentence, but specifically what it emphasizes.
We're focusing on the "languages from various regions and eras" part of the premise and the "existed across different civilizations over time" part of the conclusion. Problem is, these are only small parts of both statements.
The strong claim in our conclusion is
The emphasis in our premise/claim is
If you break it down to these strong emphases, they no longer have any kind of supportive relationship. Even adding the connection we noticed from the various languages, regions, and areas isn't enough to make part A of the conclusion more likely to be true.
Hope this helps! Certainly helped me to write out and explain to myself haha
I got all of them correct except q#3. I couldn't understand it and maybe I still don't. Initially, the statement on human communication being universal etc. was my supposed conclusion and the linguist analysis was the premise because the linguist had languages from various regions and eras to study would mean that human communication has existed across different civilizations overtime. I think what makes it wrong is the word universally. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I think when universally is used it translates to every language in this instance. So the supposed premise of" linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras" does not support the supposed conclusion that is the first sentence. Because this is just some or many not proof that human communication is a universal phenomenon. What do you guys think? If not then what exactly makes this question not an argument?
Im confused about q3, I had believed it was an argument as if linguists conducted analysis of languages from different regions and eras that should mean human communication existed across different civilizations over time. I understand im wrong if the word "universal" means every civilization as the following statement doesnt include every civilization but then I dont understand how changing "conducted" to "discovered" would make it an argument as the fact that linguists have "conducted" "comparative analyses" of multiple traditional languages from various regions and eras means those languages had to have existed and been discovered.
@TimothyLucia There is no relevance. We cannot assume that human communication is strictly comprised of “traditional languages.”
6/7, q3 was a tough one
6/7!! :D
Could Q#6 be an argument with just the first two sentences?
@HiyaSyeed I agree with you
1 got me since it was my first one identifying, and 2 i could identify it was an argument but needed to clarify the premise and conclusion. but i got the hang of it for the rest of them 😁
6/7, not bad...
#6 got me :(
Is this page the beginning of a new lesson? I am still a little unclear on where the lessons end so that I can plan my study time accordingly.
@amberdonato I think that this is the last thing of the argument lesson! the next lesson should be the next page
nn
I could argue only number 7 because of the word "all" but it still a valid argument overall.
@unknown number 7 is pretty similar to the most x are y and all y are z, so most x are z argument discussed in the first lessons. Most chefs (x) have extensive culinary knowledge (y). All chefs with extensive culinary knowledge (y) can make a delicious omelet (z). So, most chefs (x) can make a delicious omelet (z).
Reading the comments I see as though I might be a little behind, because it seems as though I may have been the only to get tripped up on question 6. I though it was an argument.
I though the conclusion would be: All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.
The premise: Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books.
I see that I was wrong and I also got tripped up a tad bit on questions 1 just a lil, I had the premise and conclusion confused with each other. So I guess 5/7.
@Krender You're not the only one! I assumed Question 6 was an argument, a really poorly formed one, so I ended up flagging it as one.
@Krender don't worry abt it. This is one of the first lessons lol. I only started yesterday and I'm sure you haven't been at this for long so don't get too in your head!
7/7 nice!!
@mmmelineeee same here *high five *
I think I am just a little confused by #3 and #6 because we talked about in the video that if there were "connecting words" then it would be argument. But what if there are no connecting/indicating words to show that it would be a premise/conclusion. Are we just supposed to be on the lookout for indicator words to ensure that it is an argument.
@JuliaSchroeder Connecting words are a good indicator that an argument is being made but the content surrounding the connections needs to be relative. I could say, "My cat hasn't eaten lately. This means she's old." Which contains both a premise and a conclusion but that premise doesn't support that conclusion.
Isn't it literally "if this, then that"?
So basically on the LSAT. An argument is an argument IF the author believes it's an argument. The premise does not necessarily need to logically support the conclusion, but if the author thinks the premise supports the conclusion, then it is an argument. Just not a very good one.
@InderpalSingh From what I have gathered from the comments, it sounds like some level of logical sense still matters for an argument. I can't say "my fish is healthy, because i walked my dog this morning." Even though it sounds like an argument due to the connecting word, it is not reasonable that these statements support each other. Someone lmk if i am wrong about this