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.
Okay let's make an argument that the rap group Migos all live in Alaska.
Conclusion: The rap group Migos all live in Alaska.
Premise 1: Takeoff lives in Alaska.
Analysis: Okay, the first premise makes it more likely for the conclusion to be true, but I need more.
Premise 2: Offset lives in Alaska.
Analysis: Again, we are getting closer, but I need more.
Premise 3: Quavo lives in Alaska.
Analysis: Now, the argument is airtight, it must be true that the rap group Migos all live in Alaska, every single one of the members is accounted for.
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?
The whole video is true but I imagine Walt would have avoided the app altogether and printed his pass to save on propitations and prostration to Goofy.
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?
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.
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.
the tiger illustration is a proving a generalization false (that all mammals can make good pets) by showing 1 exclusion - now we know that not ALL mammals make good pets. The disney argument is using conditional statements to lead to a statment that must be true #thoughts?
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.
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.
156 comments
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
Okay let's make an argument that the rap group Migos all live in Alaska.
Conclusion: The rap group Migos all live in Alaska.
Premise 1: Takeoff lives in Alaska.
Analysis: Okay, the first premise makes it more likely for the conclusion to be true, but I need more.
Premise 2: Offset lives in Alaska.
Analysis: Again, we are getting closer, but I need more.
Premise 3: Quavo lives in Alaska.
Analysis: Now, the argument is airtight, it must be true that the rap group Migos all live in Alaska, every single one of the members is accounted for.
rip the rocket
Is it just me that I found this hilarious after imagining someone prostrating to the mighty goofy?
So we're supposed to do all of this in 1 min for the real test?
@Raisethescore 1 minute 24 seconds... I took notes on the first lesson. 103-105 questions total for the LSAT.
Edit: That is without accomodations.
This argument is wildly sus
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
This reading made my head spin are people doing ritualistic sacrifices to micke mouse for a fast past?
@Tombee64 i GUESS
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?
@duck THANK YOU! Just wrote a long comment about this and it is driving me crazy.
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
As a DVC member I can confirm no goats were harmed.
I feel like this example is to poke fun at the fact that the LSAT LR stimuli are arbitrary and make no intuitive sense.
The whole video is true but I imagine Walt would have avoided the app altogether and printed his pass to save on propitations and prostration to Goofy.
"propitiations"... gulp never seen that one before... am i cooked?
@HopefulSplitter No honestly.. I had to google it rq haha
How much did Disney pay to be here?
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 was a lot because it was too long. I felt so overstimulated reading this.
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.
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
So in summary, Arguments are just math equations with words.
@DurodoluwaAina Pretty much it seems
the tiger illustration is a proving a generalization false (that all mammals can make good pets) by showing 1 exclusion - now we know that not ALL mammals make good pets. The disney argument is using conditional statements to lead to a statment that must be true #thoughts?
so must be true questions are just complicated versions of the If Then format?
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.
@EmmaSmith that threw me off as well.
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.
Hmm, I feel a little overwhelmed with so many premises listed at once! But I liked how the instructor broke it down into pieces.
So just making sure since this example stressed multiple premises, some arguments can have only one premise to support the conclusion right?
@MiaCuellar Yes, you are correct. An argument can have one or more premises supporting the conclusion.