I'm confused on what makes something an argument based on the definition of support, which is one claim being true increases the likelihood of the other to also be true. What if in this argument, the conclusion claim was instead: "Walt has never been to the Magical Kingdom?" If all the premises are true, it doesnt neccessitate the fact that Walt has NEVER been to the Magical Kingdom, but it does logically increase the likelihood of him never being there because he's never kneeled at Goofy's altar? Would this still be an argument just with very weak support? What if the conclusion was worded as "Walt has probably never been to the Magical Kingdom?"
Isn't there an error in the video? The written statement states that Members of the DVC can access the fast pass. But the video point #1 states that they have access to the Genie+ system. Are those two different things? You can mess up an argument when you don't know the difference between a system and a specific app
With the tiger example, the premise fully/strongly supported the conclusion. Here, not all the premises directly supported the conclusion in a strong way. One premise may have been the support for another premise which made the conclusion stronger.
The Disney argument is different because there are many more parts to the it than in the Tiger Argument – because there are several premises set up to support the conclusion, there is more evidence to strengthen the argument in the first place.
I'm a little hung up on the app piece, though from the comments it seems like it's an irrelevant detail. Are we meant to assume that Walt is accessing/has downloaded the pass via the app? If not, it doesn't follow that he offered the requisite propitiations.
TIGER: Not all rivers are safe. After all, the nile is infested with crocs.
Fat Cat: The back door was slammed wide open. Danny is right next to the door, laughing the way he does after doing a prank. My hypothesis is that Danny is the guilty part, having intentionally flung the door wide open.
Disney: A group of nfl fans have access to the private lounge. Those who have had season tickets for more than four years can get access to said lounge. Everyone else must have spent $1,000 in merchandise/tickets within the last year. Mark is an nfl fan. He has access to the private lounge yet he has not spent more than $1,000 within the last year. Therefore, Mark must have had tickets within the last four years.
The expression "all other members" is kinda unclear. Is it all other members who can't get Genie+ pass via the app, or all other members who have not offered propitiations to get the pass via the app. If it is the former, the argument is not valid, because we don't know if Genie pass can't be obtained through other means. If it is the latter, then the Genie pass part seems extraneous. The only relevant premises are 1.Some people in a club offered propitiation to M. 2. Others in that club prostrated in front of M. 3. Walt is in the club. 4. Walt did not prostrate in front of M. Conclusion: Walt offered propitiation to M.
Support structure is different as in the Tiger example, the premise that tigers are dangerous is a statement that supports the conclusion. In this case, we are presented with 4 statements (1, 4, 5 and 6) and two conditionals (2, 3) that set the requirements of support for the conclusion. The argument ID's an outcome must be concluded if 1 of 2 conditionals are met.
I thought the conclusion would be that members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+Fast Pass and the claims mentioned were the premises.
In the first sentence, "Genie+ fast pass" was used, whereas afterwards, it is called "Genie+ pass". In an LSAT situation, could those mean different things, or should we assume they are the same thing?
It says that for MEMBERS to get a Genie+ pass, they have those two options, but it doesn't rule out a third option. It never states that those are the only 2 ways to get a Genie+ pass.
It also specifies those ways for members, but what prevents Walt from getting a Genie+ using a different way than member specific methods despite being a member?
I'm not sure I understand how the app access factors in.
The claims:
1. Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass
2. Members who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can get their Genie+ pass via the app.
5. Walt has a Genie+ pass.
and then in the summary:
There are only two methods to obtain a Genie+ pass: a) Offering propitiations to Mickey Mouse; or b) Prostrating before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom.
-- This is not what the claim says. It says that one can only access the pass via the app if they offer the sacrifices or prostrate themselves; it doesn't say that one can't have the pass at all. Claim 5 doesn't say he has access via the app (or access at all); it just says that he has it. The only requisite for having a pass is Disney Vacation Club membership (claim 1). He could have the pass, physically for instance, and not have app access.
Maybe that's now how it works at the real Disneyland/Disneyworld (I personally have no idea), but that knowledge shouldn't be relevant to prompt.
What if Walt has a Genie+ pass but simply cant access it? Why are we assuming that he is compelled to access it just bc he has it. Bc he needs to prostrate or offer only to ACCESS, perhaps if he simply has it, but doesn't access he didnt prostrate OR offer.
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
83 comments
Hmm, I feel a little overwhelmed with so many premises listed at once! But I liked how the instructor broke it down into pieces.
I'm confused on what makes something an argument based on the definition of support, which is one claim being true increases the likelihood of the other to also be true. What if in this argument, the conclusion claim was instead: "Walt has never been to the Magical Kingdom?" If all the premises are true, it doesnt neccessitate the fact that Walt has NEVER been to the Magical Kingdom, but it does logically increase the likelihood of him never being there because he's never kneeled at Goofy's altar? Would this still be an argument just with very weak support? What if the conclusion was worded as "Walt has probably never been to the Magical Kingdom?"
Isn't there an error in the video? The written statement states that Members of the DVC can access the fast pass. But the video point #1 states that they have access to the Genie+ system. Are those two different things? You can mess up an argument when you don't know the difference between a system and a specific app
So just making sure since this example stressed multiple premises, some arguments can have only one premise to support the conclusion right?
This made me laugh. I have DVC through my parents and I can attest to the fact that prostrating before goofy is not part of the genie plus system lol
I do not see the tiger argument?
This argument was a lot because it was too long. I felt so overstimulated reading this.
With the tiger example, the premise fully/strongly supported the conclusion. Here, not all the premises directly supported the conclusion in a strong way. One premise may have been the support for another premise which made the conclusion stronger.
The Disney argument is different because there are many more parts to the it than in the Tiger Argument – because there are several premises set up to support the conclusion, there is more evidence to strengthen the argument in the first place.
did anyone else thing the 1st sentence was the conclusion?... im toast.
I'm a little hung up on the app piece, though from the comments it seems like it's an irrelevant detail. Are we meant to assume that Walt is accessing/has downloaded the pass via the app? If not, it doesn't follow that he offered the requisite propitiations.
TIGER: Not all rivers are safe. After all, the nile is infested with crocs.
Fat Cat: The back door was slammed wide open. Danny is right next to the door, laughing the way he does after doing a prank. My hypothesis is that Danny is the guilty part, having intentionally flung the door wide open.
Disney: A group of nfl fans have access to the private lounge. Those who have had season tickets for more than four years can get access to said lounge. Everyone else must have spent $1,000 in merchandise/tickets within the last year. Mark is an nfl fan. He has access to the private lounge yet he has not spent more than $1,000 within the last year. Therefore, Mark must have had tickets within the last four years.
The expression "all other members" is kinda unclear. Is it all other members who can't get Genie+ pass via the app, or all other members who have not offered propitiations to get the pass via the app. If it is the former, the argument is not valid, because we don't know if Genie pass can't be obtained through other means. If it is the latter, then the Genie pass part seems extraneous. The only relevant premises are 1.Some people in a club offered propitiation to M. 2. Others in that club prostrated in front of M. 3. Walt is in the club. 4. Walt did not prostrate in front of M. Conclusion: Walt offered propitiation to M.
Premise 3 doesn't say anything about getting a Genie+ pass
Totally irrelevant, but being an employee at Disney World and reading this has me like.... 👀
Support structure is different as in the Tiger example, the premise that tigers are dangerous is a statement that supports the conclusion. In this case, we are presented with 4 statements (1, 4, 5 and 6) and two conditionals (2, 3) that set the requirements of support for the conclusion. The argument ID's an outcome must be concluded if 1 of 2 conditionals are met.
I thought the conclusion would be that members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+Fast Pass and the claims mentioned were the premises.
In the first sentence, "Genie+ fast pass" was used, whereas afterwards, it is called "Genie+ pass". In an LSAT situation, could those mean different things, or should we assume they are the same thing?
M --> G+
G+ --> 10 G or G+ --> p
W -- x --> p
so therefore,
W --> 10 G
As a DVC member I can confirm no goats were harmed.
I don't understand why this is a must be true.
It says that for MEMBERS to get a Genie+ pass, they have those two options, but it doesn't rule out a third option. It never states that those are the only 2 ways to get a Genie+ pass.
It also specifies those ways for members, but what prevents Walt from getting a Genie+ using a different way than member specific methods despite being a member?
this is more similar to the coffee question, right?
As a DVC member and Disney adult I am now officially in love with this program!
I'm not sure I understand how the app access factors in.
The claims:
1. Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass
2. Members who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can get their Genie+ pass via the app.
5. Walt has a Genie+ pass.
and then in the summary:
There are only two methods to obtain a Genie+ pass: a) Offering propitiations to Mickey Mouse; or b) Prostrating before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom.
-- This is not what the claim says. It says that one can only access the pass via the app if they offer the sacrifices or prostrate themselves; it doesn't say that one can't have the pass at all. Claim 5 doesn't say he has access via the app (or access at all); it just says that he has it. The only requisite for having a pass is Disney Vacation Club membership (claim 1). He could have the pass, physically for instance, and not have app access.
Maybe that's now how it works at the real Disneyland/Disneyworld (I personally have no idea), but that knowledge shouldn't be relevant to prompt.
Am I missing something here?
What if Walt has a Genie+ pass but simply cant access it? Why are we assuming that he is compelled to access it just bc he has it. Bc he needs to prostrate or offer only to ACCESS, perhaps if he simply has it, but doesn't access he didnt prostrate OR offer.