I understand which is concidered to be the conclusion, and premises. However, I'm having trouble understanding premise number 6 "Walt has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything" as it seems like a contradiction to premise number 3. Wouldn't that make the overall premise only somewhat supported?
Ok, I understand how they're arguments and the structure for which to look for. I'm having trouble understanding how to not think relationally about arguments and introduce knowledge outside of the subject/claim in question. To me the Disney argument is clearly supported by explicit line by line claims that show direction. My point, the tiger argument rests on the fact of external knowledge.
@JPfeiffs in the tiger argument we are told that tigers are aggressive, which is what makes them unsuitable to be pets. No external knowledge needed. Unless of course you are trying to consider that some people may be ok with aggressive pets? While that could be considered it is outside the realm of what would be considered average, as in most people (based on my general knowledge) don't want aggresive pets. Do you think that that claim "most people don't want agressive pets" needed to be stated in order to make the argument valid? That's an overthinking trap that I have gotten into as well
@ElizabethLeBarron I was taught that validity is more about the structure of the argument and most importantly, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Now, most of these arguments aren't sound (a sound argument being that the claims are true and an unsound argument being the claims to be untrue), moreover, not all valid arguments need to be sound to be valid. As long as the shape of the argument (AKA logic structure) is a valid structure then the argument is valid. Furthermore, with relation to your question, it's beneficial to state claims in support of your premises to eliminate assumptions but not all arguments are that way. Proposed solution: strip the argument down into it's kernel then use sentential logic (i.e. Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens simply is If then logic) to understand the gaps or truth or falsity in the argument.
From how I read the text, the ONLY way you could obtain the Genie+ pass is by offering enough propitiations. What part of the text suggests that prostrating gives you access to the Genie pass? I was led to believe that the Genie + passes were gated by propitiations
@RubiOrellana constantly asking myself "why?" or "why should I believe this?" often helps me identify the conclusion. The conclusion must receive support from a premise, so asking "why?" can help you determine which claims in an argument receive support.
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.
@MagicMushroom I'd say because both claims are directly supporting one another. Example; claim 3 and 5 don't directly support one another because Walt has a pass and in claim 6 they avoid the second option.
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 I agree with you but if ground things on relationships then it implies outside knowledge of the given subject. I actually felt the opposite of you for the disney argument because when the stimuli is light then I can add unnecessary assumptions instead of sentential or predicate logic.
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.
@GabrielleFreeman I think you hit the nail on the head! The Tiger example does utilize only one premise while the Disney example utilizes several. The Disney example is more succinct due to the fact that it's completely logically sound. The Tiger example, while it logically makes sense, doesn't make as much sense because it is a less complete argument than what we are used to seeking out.
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.
148 comments
This argument is wildly sus
I understand which is concidered to be the conclusion, and premises. However, I'm having trouble understanding premise number 6 "Walt has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything" as it seems like a contradiction to premise number 3. Wouldn't that make the overall premise only somewhat supported?
Ok, I understand how they're arguments and the structure for which to look for. I'm having trouble understanding how to not think relationally about arguments and introduce knowledge outside of the subject/claim in question. To me the Disney argument is clearly supported by explicit line by line claims that show direction. My point, the tiger argument rests on the fact of external knowledge.
@JPfeiffs in the tiger argument we are told that tigers are aggressive, which is what makes them unsuitable to be pets. No external knowledge needed. Unless of course you are trying to consider that some people may be ok with aggressive pets? While that could be considered it is outside the realm of what would be considered average, as in most people (based on my general knowledge) don't want aggresive pets. Do you think that that claim "most people don't want agressive pets" needed to be stated in order to make the argument valid? That's an overthinking trap that I have gotten into as well
@ElizabethLeBarron I was taught that validity is more about the structure of the argument and most importantly, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Now, most of these arguments aren't sound (a sound argument being that the claims are true and an unsound argument being the claims to be untrue), moreover, not all valid arguments need to be sound to be valid. As long as the shape of the argument (AKA logic structure) is a valid structure then the argument is valid. Furthermore, with relation to your question, it's beneficial to state claims in support of your premises to eliminate assumptions but not all arguments are that way. Proposed solution: strip the argument down into it's kernel then use sentential logic (i.e. Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens simply is If then logic) to understand the gaps or truth or falsity in the argument.
"propitiations"... gulp never seen that one before... am i cooked?
@HopefulSplitter No honestly.. I had to google it rq haha
From how I read the text, the ONLY way you could obtain the Genie+ pass is by offering enough propitiations. What part of the text suggests that prostrating gives you access to the Genie pass? I was led to believe that the Genie + passes were gated by propitiations
@mrsirbeard It is not explicitly stated in the argument. But it says:
All members can access the pass, but this does not mean they have the pass. The argument went along to explain how the Genie+ pass can be accessed.
Those who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app.
while, all other members who wants to access their Genie+ pass must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar in the magical kingdom.
Hope that helps!
for some reason, i am struggling to find the premise versus the conclusion. Is there any tips on how to spot the conclusion?
@RubiOrellana constantly asking myself "why?" or "why should I believe this?" often helps me identify the conclusion. The conclusion must receive support from a premise, so asking "why?" can help you determine which claims in an argument receive support.
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.
@MagicMushroom I'd say because both claims are directly supporting one another. Example; claim 3 and 5 don't directly support one another because Walt has a pass and in claim 6 they avoid the second option.
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.
@lmarrington I HAD THE EXACT SAME TAKEAWAY AS YOU
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!
@KhyberBabak I agree with you but if ground things on relationships then it implies outside knowledge of the given subject. I actually felt the opposite of you for the disney argument because when the stimuli is light then I can add unnecessary assumptions instead of sentential or predicate logic.
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.
@Hanifa 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.
@GabrielleFreeman I think you hit the nail on the head! The Tiger example does utilize only one premise while the Disney example utilizes several. The Disney example is more succinct due to the fact that it's completely logically sound. The Tiger example, while it logically makes sense, doesn't make as much sense because it is a less complete argument than what we are used to seeking out.
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.