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.
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
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.
108 comments
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?
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.
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
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?
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?