For question 6 if it had stated that, "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places. Most intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subject." Would that be an argument since we do know that libraries do showcase a wide range of books on various subject or would it need to say that in the argument to confirm that? Is there a rule against inferring what we know in real life and adding that to an argument or does it need to be stated in the argument for us to confirm it even though we know it's true.
did anyone else mistaken question 3 as an argument?
I figured that the second sentence could serve as a premise for the first sentence as it states there had been analyses on languages from different "eras" in contrast to the first sentences claim of communication being a phenomenon through civilizations over time.
@KhyberBabak The second sentence is just saying that research was done. If there was a third sentence that talked about the results of the research, it can be an argument. We can make an inference on our own that if research on something was done on various eras, it must have existed across civilizations over time, but for an argument, there has to be direct support for conclusion.
If there was a third sentence that said
To research something across different eras, it must have existed across those eras.
Then yes, it is an argument. But we cannot put that in there ourselves even if we can infer it.
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.
@eborland I could be wrong but I think thats the point of these drills. You should be able to find the conclusion even if it is not in the start or the end of a sentence.
It doesn't matter if the conclusion is at the end, the beginning, or the middle. The point of it is to be able to find the conclusion anywhere within the sentences. Sometimes the conclusion can be in the middle. It's to identify it.
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.
@HainingPeng I don’t think you could, due to the “because” after the word “omelet” in the argument being the indicator of the conclusion.
I think it would only be possible if you played around with the structure of the argument a bit, like — Most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge because all chefs with extensive culinary knowledge can make a delicious omelet and most chefs can make a delicious omelet.
That might make it make sense as the conclusion. I’m also getting tired so maybe someone else can weigh in, lol.
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?
@DeliaCanDoIt! The term "forbidden" in "forbidden jar" seems sufficent enough. To my knowledge the LSAT is more designed to get "gotcha" moments with flawed or invalid logical conclusions, not with loose plausible deniability.
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?
@180-Energy You have an argument as long as there is a premise and a conclusion. There can be many other statements, too, which you'll learn later are context. But the presence of other kinds of statements doesn't change whether you have an argument.
#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.
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.
From watching the video, what I gathered is that there are no connecting words to connect each claim. And since an argument needs there to be a connection its not an argument. Let's look at #1, for example, the use of "In contrast" and "This suggests" is connecting the premise and conclusion to each other. I also got question #6 wrong because I thought what you thought, but the video helped me understand. :)
@AnnaAnderson I would say this doesn't constitute an argument because it's incomplete. If you're assuming that the first sentence is the conclusion, it doesn't work because the argument does not create a conditional relationship between being an intellectual place and being well stocked, only between being well stocked and being disorganized. There's no proper relationship between the first sentence and the following two.
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!
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.
441 comments
For question 6 if it had stated that, "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places. Most intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subject." Would that be an argument since we do know that libraries do showcase a wide range of books on various subject or would it need to say that in the argument to confirm that? Is there a rule against inferring what we know in real life and adding that to an argument or does it need to be stated in the argument for us to confirm it even though we know it's true.
Conclusion is what do they want us to believe? The premise is the evidence used to back the claim.
6/7 - question 4 tripped me up
yay i got all of them right :)
6/7, question 6 tripped me up
7/7, yay
did anyone else mistaken question 3 as an argument?
I figured that the second sentence could serve as a premise for the first sentence as it states there had been analyses on languages from different "eras" in contrast to the first sentences claim of communication being a phenomenon through civilizations over time.
Prove me wrong? I might be overanalyzing this
@KhyberBabak The second sentence is just saying that research was done. If there was a third sentence that talked about the results of the research, it can be an argument. We can make an inference on our own that if research on something was done on various eras, it must have existed across civilizations over time, but for an argument, there has to be direct support for conclusion.
If there was a third sentence that said
To research something across different eras, it must have existed across those eras.
Then yes, it is an argument. But we cannot put that in there ourselves even if we can infer it.
That’s exactly what I saw
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!
Number 6 trick me cause I thought the "But" was starting a argument
7 threw me off cause it was one sentence, but I see your allowed to break the sentence up.
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
@eborland I could be wrong but I think thats the point of these drills. You should be able to find the conclusion even if it is not in the start or the end of a sentence.
@eborland @Mr.Coolguy
It doesn't matter if the conclusion is at the end, the beginning, or the middle. The point of it is to be able to find the conclusion anywhere within the sentences. Sometimes the conclusion can be in the middle. It's to identify it.
@AaronMiller2003 and sometimes you have an intermediate conclusion! Fun times.
@eborland Earlier in the lessons, it says that order does not matter!!
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.
@HainingPeng I don’t think you could, due to the “because” after the word “omelet” in the argument being the indicator of the conclusion.
I think it would only be possible if you played around with the structure of the argument a bit, like — Most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge because all chefs with extensive culinary knowledge can make a delicious omelet and most chefs can make a delicious omelet.
That might make it make sense as the conclusion. I’m also getting tired so maybe someone else can weigh in, lol.
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?
@DeliaCanDoIt! The term "forbidden" in "forbidden jar" seems sufficent enough. To my knowledge the LSAT is more designed to get "gotcha" moments with flawed or invalid logical conclusions, not with loose plausible deniability.
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.
@LawyerWilkins I was wondering the same thing! I am glad I was not the only one thinking this way.
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?
@180-Energy You have an argument as long as there is a premise and a conclusion. There can be many other statements, too, which you'll learn later are context. But the presence of other kinds of statements doesn't change whether you have an argument.
@Kevin_Lin Understood. Thank you!
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.
@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.
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.
From watching the video, what I gathered is that there are no connecting words to connect each claim. And since an argument needs there to be a connection its not an argument. Let's look at #1, for example, the use of "In contrast" and "This suggests" is connecting the premise and conclusion to each other. I also got question #6 wrong because I thought what you thought, but the video helped me understand. :)
@AnnaAnderson I would say this doesn't constitute an argument because it's incomplete. If you're assuming that the first sentence is the conclusion, it doesn't work because the argument does not create a conditional relationship between being an intellectual place and being well stocked, only between being well stocked and being disorganized. There's no proper relationship between the first sentence and the following two.
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!
@ryokace I did the same thing, I read it too fast and assumed wrong based on sentence structure!