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.
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.
For question 7 if it just read 'Most chefs can make a delicious omelet, most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge.' Would this still be an argument?
I got 7/7 correct! For anyone who had questions about #3, the main indicator for me was that neither claim supported the other. Sure they're related, but one claim is not being used to prove the other. Because of that, it's not really a premise/conclusion relationship.
I did not see how Q3 wasn't an argument at first. But it makes sense because nothing was done with the comparative analyses, the results could have been that every region and era had too many differences to be a universal phenomenon or it could have proved that it is. We don't have enough information to assume they did.
@Deb I saw this as not an argument because the linguists statement just back up studying being done and not the long standing existence of human communication which I read as the potential conclusion.
Still not understanding how #3 is not an argument. If linguists are doing comparative analyses of traditional languages, there is a reasonable “assumption” that there are languages across multiple eras and cultures. That definitely supports human communication being universal. It’s a horrid argument, don’t get me wrong. It doesn’t prove that all cultures and eras everywhere have have language, and it is after all based on an assumption. But it still supports the conclusion. It’s truthfulness does make communication universality more true, as LACK of comparative analyses would strengthen the idea that human communication is NOT universal.
Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time. Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional language from various regions and eras. The results showed that different civilizations had their own form of communication that dated 1000 of years.
@BowenZaunbrecher I see your point. But I think what helps me understand that it is not, is by always asking myself to find a connection between statements and a conclusion. The two statements do some what connect but the author does not reach a conclusion. 1) Human communication is universal ect--2) Linguists have conducted ect----
3) (what does this prove? It leaves me hanging).
I do not know if that helps you, but it helped me. Always ask what does this prove? And if you find yourself having to find a statement that reveals the answer to that question, then there is no conclusion and therefore no argument.
6/7 right. I got question 6 wrong because I rushed it. If I would have slowed down and really read I would see that the premises did not support the first sentence which I had thought was the conclusion.
I thought the issue for q3 was the scope, since the first sentences sets the claim that human communication is universal. Modifying it to "...discovered many traditional languages from various regions and areas" still won't make the claim true, no? since the conclusion is universal in scope, and the premise is limited in scope?
7/7!! yay I was so worried lol. what helped me was searching for the conclusion first then finding the "premise" which I like to think of as supporting evidence that has some sort of backing to it. the conclusion usually feels like an opinion.
Seeing everybody mention their scores, and I definitely made small preventable mistakes. HOWEVER, these small mistakes are what will become ingrained, and it's important you learn and don't make the easy mistakes again!!! Keep working hard and don't let it discourage you, but motivate you :))
Question 3 got me, because my thought process was: (1)Premise: Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of [traditional languages from various regions and eras].
I was not taking "Linguists have conducted many analyses" as the supportive claim. However, (when I first read it), the existence of "traditional languages" leads to there were several languages rooted in different (ancient) cultures. Plus, "from various...eras" leads to the [across different civilizations over time]."
Hence I thought the second sentence is a support for the first sentence on my first take.
@ruri623 It lowkey is, the fact that they have done comparative analyses of traditional languages directly implies that they have already discovered those languages. If someone said:
"Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras so therefore we know Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time"
and you tried to argue by saying:
"that proves nothing, just because they did some comparative analyses on language from various regions and eras does not mean language from various regions and eras exists."
You would be laughed at because how can you do the analyses without the languages existing.
If the sentence included "We know" at the beginning and "because" at the beginning of the second sentence, its clearly an argument. So is the omission of these three words the only thing preventing this from being an argument?
@binks I know what everyone is trying to say about Q3 but I think the difference between "communication" and "language" is laughable. I still think this is just one piece of evidence for this argument. It increases it's truthfulness or whatever.
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.
@AliMerhi That wouldn't be an argument, because your goal is to prove that "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places".
So the sentence could be "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places[conclusion], because all intellectual places have a wide range of books on various subjects, and all libraries are well-stocked with these books.[premise] " (something of that nature, someone please correct me if I'm wrong)
I believe that knowledge needs to be stated in the argument in order for us to confirm it. As long as we can see a Claim being supported by another Claim, then it's an argument.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
469 comments
7/7 nice!!
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.
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.
6/7 but #4 got me
For question 7 if it just read 'Most chefs can make a delicious omelet, most chefs have extensive culinary knowledge.' Would this still be an argument?
I got 7/7 correct! For anyone who had questions about #3, the main indicator for me was that neither claim supported the other. Sure they're related, but one claim is not being used to prove the other. Because of that, it's not really a premise/conclusion relationship.
I did not see how Q3 wasn't an argument at first. But it makes sense because nothing was done with the comparative analyses, the results could have been that every region and era had too many differences to be a universal phenomenon or it could have proved that it is. We don't have enough information to assume they did.
@Deb I saw this as not an argument because the linguists statement just back up studying being done and not the long standing existence of human communication which I read as the potential conclusion.
Still not understanding how #3 is not an argument. If linguists are doing comparative analyses of traditional languages, there is a reasonable “assumption” that there are languages across multiple eras and cultures. That definitely supports human communication being universal. It’s a horrid argument, don’t get me wrong. It doesn’t prove that all cultures and eras everywhere have have language, and it is after all based on an assumption. But it still supports the conclusion. It’s truthfulness does make communication universality more true, as LACK of comparative analyses would strengthen the idea that human communication is NOT universal.
How would we make question 3 an argument?
Does this suffice?
Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time. Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional language from various regions and eras. The results showed that different civilizations had their own form of communication that dated 1000 of years.
I'm still not totally convinced that question 3 is not an argument.
The second sentence doesn't PROVE that the first is true, but it is usable as a piece of evidence for it.
The first sentence entails:
Human Communication has existed across every civilization.
The second sentence entails:
Human communication has at least occurred in multiple civilizations in the world.
That second sentence can be used as a premise for the first, right?
It's a BAD argument with a dumb premise, but it's still an argument.
The same way I can say
"The boy ate the cookies, because the cookies are missing"
That's a terrible argument, but it's still an argument.
@BowenZaunbrecher I see your point. But I think what helps me understand that it is not, is by always asking myself to find a connection between statements and a conclusion. The two statements do some what connect but the author does not reach a conclusion. 1) Human communication is universal ect--2) Linguists have conducted ect----
3) (what does this prove? It leaves me hanging).
I do not know if that helps you, but it helped me. Always ask what does this prove? And if you find yourself having to find a statement that reveals the answer to that question, then there is no conclusion and therefore no argument.
6/7 right. I got question 6 wrong because I rushed it. If I would have slowed down and really read I would see that the premises did not support the first sentence which I had thought was the conclusion.
I thought the issue for q3 was the scope, since the first sentences sets the claim that human communication is universal. Modifying it to "...discovered many traditional languages from various regions and areas" still won't make the claim true, no? since the conclusion is universal in scope, and the premise is limited in scope?
I got 6/7. I got Q3 wrong, though it was argument :(
6/7. I have a question on Q3. Can we say that on top of the description provided in the video that not every "human communication" is language?
7/7!! yay I was so worried lol. what helped me was searching for the conclusion first then finding the "premise" which I like to think of as supporting evidence that has some sort of backing to it. the conclusion usually feels like an opinion.
Seeing everybody mention their scores, and I definitely made small preventable mistakes. HOWEVER, these small mistakes are what will become ingrained, and it's important you learn and don't make the easy mistakes again!!! Keep working hard and don't let it discourage you, but motivate you :))
6/7
Question 3 got me, because my thought process was: (1)Premise: Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of [traditional languages from various regions and eras].
I was not taking "Linguists have conducted many analyses" as the supportive claim. However, (when I first read it), the existence of "traditional languages" leads to there were several languages rooted in different (ancient) cultures. Plus, "from various...eras" leads to the [across different civilizations over time]."
Hence I thought the second sentence is a support for the first sentence on my first take.
@ruri623 It lowkey is, the fact that they have done comparative analyses of traditional languages directly implies that they have already discovered those languages. If someone said:
"Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras so therefore we know Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time"
and you tried to argue by saying:
"that proves nothing, just because they did some comparative analyses on language from various regions and eras does not mean language from various regions and eras exists."
You would be laughed at because how can you do the analyses without the languages existing.
If the sentence included "We know" at the beginning and "because" at the beginning of the second sentence, its clearly an argument. So is the omission of these three words the only thing preventing this from being an argument?
@binks I know what everyone is trying to say about Q3 but I think the difference between "communication" and "language" is laughable. I still think this is just one piece of evidence for this argument. It increases it's truthfulness or whatever.
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.
6/7 correct! question three tripped me up. i thought it sounded funny, but ultimately decided it was a argument.
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.
@AliMerhi That wouldn't be an argument, because your goal is to prove that "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places".
So the sentence could be "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places[conclusion], because all intellectual places have a wide range of books on various subjects, and all libraries are well-stocked with these books.[premise] " (something of that nature, someone please correct me if I'm wrong)
I believe that knowledge needs to be stated in the argument in order for us to confirm it. As long as we can see a Claim being supported by another Claim, then it's an argument.
Conclusion is what do they want us to believe? The premise is the evidence used to back the claim.
@carsonjb I believe so, because premises support conclusions.
6/7 - question 4 tripped me up
yay i got all of them right :)
6/7, question 6 tripped me up