How can we tell that the support is strong in this? Just because the premises support the conclusion?
This may be getting ahead of myself- but how do we know that number 2. and 3. of the premises are the only options? Is it because it says "members" and then "all other members"?
I just want to make sure I am not missing anything.
I do understand where the conclusion is "Therefore, Walt must have..." However, I do believe this "correct" conclusion takes us away from the overall claim that "Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass."
Was the argument about Walt or was the argument about being able to access the Genie+ fast pass? Why is Walt, who must be a Disney Vacation Club member, not just an example scenario for the initial claim?
The scenario of Walt, supports that members must do A or B to obtain a Genie+, because Walt did A or B (which is a flaw I believe). This ultimately concludes that if you do A or B you, as a member, have access to the Genie+ pass.
@lmarrington · So, what’s going on here? Well, a couple of things. You can see that 7Sage has broken down each line of the paragraph basically one by one to show the premise(s) that are being used to support the argument which is that "Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey." Starting with claim 1., it’s letting us know that Disney Vacation Club members can now access the Genie+ Pass. How? Through claim two, which is to offer ten goats to Mickey as well as how to access the pass (via app). Then support sentence three is telling the reader how they can get it, by prostrating themselves before Goof (and this is where I think it’s a bit tricky because you can’t forget about claim two i.e. also being able to offer propitiations to Mickey (ten goats)). Then something interesting and maybe a bit confusing happens in claim 4. The paragraph switches to talking about Walt. In claim 4 it lets the reader know that Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club (seems a bit random huh?). Then there’s added support in claim 5 which is that he has the Genie+ pass. Claim 6 then adds to both 4 and 5 by stating that he hasn’t prostrated himself to anyone or anything (meaning he didn’t go the route of Goofy) This then leaves only one option, Walt MUST have gotten the pass, through Mickey. Claim 7 (the conclusion) wraps it all up by stating that he must have offered the requisite to obtain the pass. What I think is maybe confusing (I was too) is the “random” switch up halfway through the paragraph to Walt. It starts with generally talking about how any Disney Vacation Member can obtain a fast pass. I believe what is happening is that the author of this claim is purposefully trying to throw off the reader by “switching” to a more specific entity (Walt) so that you get confused. (These are my notes and I saw your question, so I added more to the notes to see if this maybe helps, because same lol).
@Calico_Jaxx I think 7Sage uses the first line as context. I do thank you for explaining the answer claim by claim, but that was not the question I had. Nonetheless thank you for your reiteration on how the correct conclusion is understood.
In comparison to the Tiger argument, the premises in this scenario were all over the place, where as in the Tiger statement there was one direct premise with a direct correlation.
I thought this would be a "which assumption must be true" question with something along the lines of "the only way to access the Genie+ pass is via the app". Bc nothing here technically disallows for a non-app access to the Genie+ pass. The propitiations and prostration were presented as requirements for in-app access to Genie+ pass, whereas the only requirement for general access of the Genie+ pass was just being a member of DVC. If I had read all the premises I would assume the conclusion would be "Therefore Walt must only have a physical Genie+ pass and does not have in-app access". How are we supposed to know that the "via the Disney app" is an irrelevant qualifier here?
@danjpeach96 I completely agree. The specification "via the disney app" is used as clutter in this scenario. In a real LR question, there will be answer choices. The answer choices make it a bit easier to discipher whether the app is relevant to the argument or not.
For instance, if there was an answer choice that said "Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse on the app" that would have been the correct answer.
In this case, assuming that choice does not exist, the answer choice "Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse." would be the correct one because it proves the argument correct and is supported by all aforementioned statements while also telling you "Hey, the fact that it's on the app is not relevant so im not even giving it to you as a choice." They're indirectly telling you with the choices the app is irrelevant.
With Tiger Argument, there was one premise that provided support to the conclusion "Not all mammals". Whereas, in here, there are many premises of which one leads us to the conclusion.
The tiger argument only utilized one premise to support the conclusion. The argument was not the strongest because it only proved that one mammal was unsafe to keep as a part. Although that proves the conclusion as a statement it doesn't provide as much evidence (premises) as the Disney example. I don't think I'm explaining it well, but I really want to get better at explaining my thoughts on these questions.
I feel like the tiger argument had one strong premise while the Disney argument used multiple premises to make a claim. Also the Disney argument gave us two methods to obtain a pass and told us Walt didn't do one of the method so therefor he had to the other method to obtain the pass. It was kind of like putting the puzzle to together.
Does this mean that claims 1-6 are the premise and each individual claim is not?
Example: Disney vacation club members can access the Genie+ system is NOT a premise because it does not support the conclusion that Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse, right? However,
Good argument, except that I would point out that this argument depends on the assumption that all Genie+ past pass is downloaded via the Disney App. If negated, Walt could have had the paper pass in some other way that does not require one to offer the propitations nor prostrate before the altar.
Tiger Argument: Some WWE fighters will experience some type of injury in their career. Therefore, some WWE fighters perform life threatening moves.
Disney Argument: Every child in this household has conditionally approved access to the Netflix account. The only conditions to receive access for Netflix is the completion of homework and chores. Those who have completed their homework and daily chores before Mom and Dad arrive back home can have full access to the Netflix account immediately. All other child household members must spend an extra hour studying in the presence of Mom and Dad. Shera is a child in this household. She has immediate access to Netflix because she never spent an extra hour studying in the presence of Mom and Dad. Therefore, Shera must have followed the directives of Mom and Dad.
Trash Bin Argument: As I walk into my room, I notice my closet door is open and some of my items are missing. The same items that my sister always ask me to borrow. My sister is usually the only one home at this time but I came back early than expected. There is my sister wearing the missing items as she tries to sneak pass me and run down the stairs unseen, just like she always does when she borrows my things without permission. Hence, my sister took my items out of my closet.
This is a perfect example of why it's important to follow the relationships of a passage. The LSAT will throw weird or confusing topics at you (Dense science passage, philosophical jargon, or topics way out of familiarity with) that might make you feel lost in the details. Paying attention to the claims helps you not get lost and focus on what matters (what's the conclusion being argued? Why is it that likely to be true?).
Keep in mind the LSAT tests you based on the passage, your knowledge of the topic isn't graded, what matters is what can be supported based on the information provided; you can't assume anything. Therefore, it's actually nice to have a question based on a random topic. Your less likely to assume information about a topic you're clueless about.
@SarahShaver Hi they'll probably go over it an future modules but there are intermediate conclusions which are supported by premises and then go on to support final conclusions. I wouldn't worry about that until they explain it though.
Hi. Ok. So the first sentence says Genie+ fast pass. It does not say Genie+ fast pass anywhere else in this paragraph. What if there is a difference between the Genie+ pass and the Genie+ fast pass. The rest makes sense but why even put the word 'fast' in the first sentence only to abandon it in every subsequent sentence?
This really hurts my brain. Because if they are two different things, we may not even be talking about the first thing in the rest of the paragraph.
Walt can access the Genie+ fast pass because he is a member of the Disney Vacation Club.
It seems he also has a Genie+ pass (not fast though). And the only other way other than prostrating oneself to Goofy's altar to get a Genie+ pass- that we are told- is to offer ten goats' worth of proportions to Mickey Mouse.
I hate how the first sentence says fast in it. How often does this happen on the LSAT? Was it a mistake or is there something I am missing?
@EmmaSmith Oh wow I missed the fast pass part. I got hung up on in-app access vs general access (like a physical access card). The propitiations and prostration were presented as requirements for in-app access to Genie+ pass, whereas the only requirement for general access of the Genie+ pass was just being a member of DVC.
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.
131 comments
I have 2 questions-
How can we tell that the support is strong in this? Just because the premises support the conclusion?
This may be getting ahead of myself- but how do we know that number 2. and 3. of the premises are the only options? Is it because it says "members" and then "all other members"?
I just want to make sure I am not missing anything.
I do understand where the conclusion is "Therefore, Walt must have..." However, I do believe this "correct" conclusion takes us away from the overall claim that "Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass."
Was the argument about Walt or was the argument about being able to access the Genie+ fast pass? Why is Walt, who must be a Disney Vacation Club member, not just an example scenario for the initial claim?
The scenario of Walt, supports that members must do A or B to obtain a Genie+, because Walt did A or B (which is a flaw I believe). This ultimately concludes that if you do A or B you, as a member, have access to the Genie+ pass.
@lmarrington · So, what’s going on here? Well, a couple of things. You can see that 7Sage has broken down each line of the paragraph basically one by one to show the premise(s) that are being used to support the argument which is that "Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey." Starting with claim 1., it’s letting us know that Disney Vacation Club members can now access the Genie+ Pass. How? Through claim two, which is to offer ten goats to Mickey as well as how to access the pass (via app). Then support sentence three is telling the reader how they can get it, by prostrating themselves before Goof (and this is where I think it’s a bit tricky because you can’t forget about claim two i.e. also being able to offer propitiations to Mickey (ten goats)). Then something interesting and maybe a bit confusing happens in claim 4. The paragraph switches to talking about Walt. In claim 4 it lets the reader know that Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club (seems a bit random huh?). Then there’s added support in claim 5 which is that he has the Genie+ pass. Claim 6 then adds to both 4 and 5 by stating that he hasn’t prostrated himself to anyone or anything (meaning he didn’t go the route of Goofy) This then leaves only one option, Walt MUST have gotten the pass, through Mickey. Claim 7 (the conclusion) wraps it all up by stating that he must have offered the requisite to obtain the pass. What I think is maybe confusing (I was too) is the “random” switch up halfway through the paragraph to Walt. It starts with generally talking about how any Disney Vacation Member can obtain a fast pass. I believe what is happening is that the author of this claim is purposefully trying to throw off the reader by “switching” to a more specific entity (Walt) so that you get confused. (These are my notes and I saw your question, so I added more to the notes to see if this maybe helps, because same lol).
@Calico_Jaxx I think 7Sage uses the first line as context. I do thank you for explaining the answer claim by claim, but that was not the question I had. Nonetheless thank you for your reiteration on how the correct conclusion is understood.
In comparison to the Tiger argument, the premises in this scenario were all over the place, where as in the Tiger statement there was one direct premise with a direct correlation.
@KhyberBabak Yup!
I thought this would be a "which assumption must be true" question with something along the lines of "the only way to access the Genie+ pass is via the app". Bc nothing here technically disallows for a non-app access to the Genie+ pass. The propitiations and prostration were presented as requirements for in-app access to Genie+ pass, whereas the only requirement for general access of the Genie+ pass was just being a member of DVC. If I had read all the premises I would assume the conclusion would be "Therefore Walt must only have a physical Genie+ pass and does not have in-app access". How are we supposed to know that the "via the Disney app" is an irrelevant qualifier here?
@danjpeach96 I completely agree. The specification "via the disney app" is used as clutter in this scenario. In a real LR question, there will be answer choices. The answer choices make it a bit easier to discipher whether the app is relevant to the argument or not.
For instance, if there was an answer choice that said "Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse on the app" that would have been the correct answer.
In this case, assuming that choice does not exist, the answer choice "Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse." would be the correct one because it proves the argument correct and is supported by all aforementioned statements while also telling you "Hey, the fact that it's on the app is not relevant so im not even giving it to you as a choice." They're indirectly telling you with the choices the app is irrelevant.
Thats how I understand it.
With Tiger Argument, there was one premise that provided support to the conclusion "Not all mammals". Whereas, in here, there are many premises of which one leads us to the conclusion.
and of course, with multiple premises, it is longer to read and follow.
@Hfa I agree! :)
The tiger argument only utilized one premise to support the conclusion. The argument was not the strongest because it only proved that one mammal was unsafe to keep as a part. Although that proves the conclusion as a statement it doesn't provide as much evidence (premises) as the Disney example. I don't think I'm explaining it well, but I really want to get better at explaining my thoughts on these questions.
I feel like this example is to poke fun at the fact that the LSAT LR stimuli are arbitrary and make no intuitive sense.
I feel like the tiger argument had one strong premise while the Disney argument used multiple premises to make a claim. Also the Disney argument gave us two methods to obtain a pass and told us Walt didn't do one of the method so therefor he had to the other method to obtain the pass. It was kind of like putting the puzzle to together.
As a DVC member, I promise we don't actually have to offer propitiations or prostrate ourselves!
@XXVIXXIVXX hmmmm idkkkkk
Does this mean that claims 1-6 are the premise and each individual claim is not?
Example: Disney vacation club members can access the Genie+ system is NOT a premise because it does not support the conclusion that Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse, right? However,
This reading made my head spin are people doing ritualistic sacrifices to micke mouse for a fast past?
@Tombee64 i GUESS
Good argument, except that I would point out that this argument depends on the assumption that all Genie+ past pass is downloaded via the Disney App. If negated, Walt could have had the paper pass in some other way that does not require one to offer the propitations nor prostrate before the altar.
@jujujube my feeling was that Walt could be the owner/operator of the fast pass so he got one for free
This was an awesome mind game
I thought the "app" factor was part of its own claim
So we're supposed to do all of this in 1 min for the real test?
first the heavily punctuated dry humor, then the meme pic insert, and now disney...and it's not even Just disney it's evil cult disney
@cortis wait we can post memes on here 😭 they trust us way too much 😅
@cortis LOL
How much did Disney pay to be here?
Tiger Argument: Some WWE fighters will experience some type of injury in their career. Therefore, some WWE fighters perform life threatening moves.
Disney Argument: Every child in this household has conditionally approved access to the Netflix account. The only conditions to receive access for Netflix is the completion of homework and chores. Those who have completed their homework and daily chores before Mom and Dad arrive back home can have full access to the Netflix account immediately. All other child household members must spend an extra hour studying in the presence of Mom and Dad. Shera is a child in this household. She has immediate access to Netflix because she never spent an extra hour studying in the presence of Mom and Dad. Therefore, Shera must have followed the directives of Mom and Dad.
Trash Bin Argument: As I walk into my room, I notice my closet door is open and some of my items are missing. The same items that my sister always ask me to borrow. My sister is usually the only one home at this time but I came back early than expected. There is my sister wearing the missing items as she tries to sneak pass me and run down the stairs unseen, just like she always does when she borrows my things without permission. Hence, my sister took my items out of my closet.
Just finsihed day 1, when are we supposed to take a practice test?
@AaronKamauJr i think once you are done with the learning plan.
huh?
so must be true questions are just complicated versions of the If Then format?
This is a perfect example of why it's important to follow the relationships of a passage. The LSAT will throw weird or confusing topics at you (Dense science passage, philosophical jargon, or topics way out of familiarity with) that might make you feel lost in the details. Paying attention to the claims helps you not get lost and focus on what matters (what's the conclusion being argued? Why is it that likely to be true?).
Keep in mind the LSAT tests you based on the passage, your knowledge of the topic isn't graded, what matters is what can be supported based on the information provided; you can't assume anything. Therefore, it's actually nice to have a question based on a random topic. Your less likely to assume information about a topic you're clueless about.
@RubemSantos This
So can you have multiple premises and support but not multiple conclusions?
@SarahShaver Hi they'll probably go over it an future modules but there are intermediate conclusions which are supported by premises and then go on to support final conclusions. I wouldn't worry about that until they explain it though.
@DelleS I know they're pretty prevalent in RC, I didn't know they were so apparent in LR as well.
Hi. Ok. So the first sentence says Genie+ fast pass. It does not say Genie+ fast pass anywhere else in this paragraph. What if there is a difference between the Genie+ pass and the Genie+ fast pass. The rest makes sense but why even put the word 'fast' in the first sentence only to abandon it in every subsequent sentence?
This really hurts my brain. Because if they are two different things, we may not even be talking about the first thing in the rest of the paragraph.
Walt can access the Genie+ fast pass because he is a member of the Disney Vacation Club.
It seems he also has a Genie+ pass (not fast though). And the only other way other than prostrating oneself to Goofy's altar to get a Genie+ pass- that we are told- is to offer ten goats' worth of proportions to Mickey Mouse.
I hate how the first sentence says fast in it. How often does this happen on the LSAT? Was it a mistake or is there something I am missing?
@EmmaSmith Oh wow I missed the fast pass part. I got hung up on in-app access vs general access (like a physical access card). The propitiations and prostration were presented as requirements for in-app access to Genie+ pass, whereas the only requirement for general access of the Genie+ pass was just being a member of DVC.
wish the examples were less violent, less graphic and more law related or fun