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.
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?
Does anyone have tips on reading long lsat arguments without getting overstimulated. My brain tends to go in 10 different directions if I were to do this alone I would've never figured it out but the video helped. But on test day I won't have a video what can prevent this?
This argument had multiple premises of support, which created a strong argument for the conclusion. I would argue that due to the Tiger argument just having one premise of support, it is not as strong despite still being true. Many things could have led to the conclusion that not all mammals are suitable for pets. They were both supported arguments; I think they just varied in strength due to the number of premises given and the logical conclusions given from said support.
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.
Premise 3 doesn't say anything about getting a Genie+ pass
2
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!
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.
97 comments
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?
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.
So can you have multiple premises and support but not multiple conclusions?
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?
wish the examples were less violent, less graphic and more law related or fun
Does anyone have tips on reading long lsat arguments without getting overstimulated. My brain tends to go in 10 different directions if I were to do this alone I would've never figured it out but the video helped. But on test day I won't have a video what can prevent this?
This argument had multiple premises of support, which created a strong argument for the conclusion. I would argue that due to the Tiger argument just having one premise of support, it is not as strong despite still being true. Many things could have led to the conclusion that not all mammals are suitable for pets. They were both supported arguments; I think they just varied in strength due to the number of premises given and the logical conclusions given from said support.
this gave me a good laugh, thanks or keeping things interesting
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