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’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.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned question 6. It's tricky when analyzing because one word determines wether or not it's an argument. How did you know the word "but" wasn't the premise?
But if an L is disorganized it is not well-stocked.
Why does being disorganized make an L not well-stocked? None of the premises answer this. None of the premises support this fake conclusion! There is no argument here
I am still confused by questions 3. I understand that both are technically stating claims, but they don't provide any support to one another. To me, the 2nd half of the sentence seems like that could be used as support for the first sentence. Therefore the initial sentence is a conclusion.
Can someone please explain this like you would to a 5 year old. It's not clicking for me.
@NLM Same. To be fair, they both somewhat sound like claims, but the first sentence is very "blanket statement" and the second one does provide evidence- linguists would not be able to conduct comparative analysis of traditional languages from various places and times. I think that without the added component of linguists' work, it would not hold up but since there is that support, it seems like it would. The ability for linguists to be able to conduct analysis shows that there is something there, which seems to be support.
I got them all right! I took my time and for every question, I essentially interrogated it. (what are you persuading me about? how are these sentences connected? I also paid attention to key phrases like "this suggests", "as indicated", and "so".)
So for Q3, if it was "discovered" as opposed to "conducted," would it be classified as an argument? I feel like it still doesn't sound like an argument?
I found question #3 confusing! When I analyze the stimulus through the lens of whether it provides support, I perceive the studies conducted as support for the first sentence.
question 4 was a bit confusing. I didn't know that the conclusion could look like that. Why woudn't the conclusion be "he knows that doing what is not permitted without first seeking permission is wrong." ?
I said #2 is an argument but how it was rewritten I thought that "individuals without blue eyes are far less likely to have a relative with blue eyes" was the conclusion because I thought it was supported by everything else.
I was tripped up by Question 2 as I thought premises and a conclusion would be in full sentences. Even though the conclusion of "having blue eyes is largely determined by genetics" popped to me as a conclusion, I decided to label it as a non-argument. Fortunately, I corrected myself of that mistake by getting Question 7 correct!
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.
396 comments
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
chat i am so cooked
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.
Can someone like my comment so I can come back PLEASE!!!!!
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned question 6. It's tricky when analyzing because one word determines wether or not it's an argument. How did you know the word "but" wasn't the premise?
I need to come back and watch this again. Can someone please like my comment?
All As and Bs are Ls.
Most well-stocked Ls showcase a wide range of Xs.
But if an L is disorganized it is not well-stocked.
Why does being disorganized make an L not well-stocked? None of the premises answer this. None of the premises support this fake conclusion! There is no argument here
I am still confused by questions 3. I understand that both are technically stating claims, but they don't provide any support to one another. To me, the 2nd half of the sentence seems like that could be used as support for the first sentence. Therefore the initial sentence is a conclusion.
Can someone please explain this like you would to a 5 year old. It's not clicking for me.
@NLM Same. To be fair, they both somewhat sound like claims, but the first sentence is very "blanket statement" and the second one does provide evidence- linguists would not be able to conduct comparative analysis of traditional languages from various places and times. I think that without the added component of linguists' work, it would not hold up but since there is that support, it seems like it would. The ability for linguists to be able to conduct analysis shows that there is something there, which seems to be support.
So is question 7 like the XYZ format we did before? That's how I wrote it out like
- Most X are Y
All Y are Z
Thus, most X are Z
Most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge
All people with extensive culinary knowledge can make a delicious omelet
Thus, most chefs can make a delicious omelet
I got them all right! I took my time and for every question, I essentially interrogated it. (what are you persuading me about? how are these sentences connected? I also paid attention to key phrases like "this suggests", "as indicated", and "so".)
So for Q3, if it was "discovered" as opposed to "conducted," would it be classified as an argument? I feel like it still doesn't sound like an argument?
I found question #3 confusing! When I analyze the stimulus through the lens of whether it provides support, I perceive the studies conducted as support for the first sentence.
Q. 4 is confusing.
question 4 was a bit confusing. I didn't know that the conclusion could look like that. Why woudn't the conclusion be "he knows that doing what is not permitted without first seeking permission is wrong." ?
I said #2 is an argument but how it was rewritten I thought that "individuals without blue eyes are far less likely to have a relative with blue eyes" was the conclusion because I thought it was supported by everything else.
my notes
as indicated by says what i say next supports what i previously said
conclusion is not always at the end of the argument.
q3 nothing supports something else it is just a bunch of stated facts so not an argument.
how we know first sent in q4 is a conclusion because it is supported by the next sentence.
so conclusion indicator also cause its supported by 1st 2 sentences.
q6 tricked me i did not actual read that one sentence didnt actually support another i glanced thru that one.
indicator dont always precede a conclusion
q7 first sentence is designed to be suported by the other two, add words like because and why?
I was tripped up by Question 2 as I thought premises and a conclusion would be in full sentences. Even though the conclusion of "having blue eyes is largely determined by genetics" popped to me as a conclusion, I decided to label it as a non-argument. Fortunately, I corrected myself of that mistake by getting Question 7 correct!
I got them all right!