The Disney argument provides enough support to funnel the viewer into a specific conclusion based off how the support cancels out other conclusions to the observation.
The Tiger argument provides only one supporting statement, however, the conclusion from the author correlates directly to the cause.
The Trash Bin argument doesn't include other sources that could have tipped over the trash can. It is taking prior experience with the cat and applying that hypothesis to the current situation which leaves the viewer questioning if that was the only conclusion that could be drawn.
The Disney argument essentially funnels you into a one of two choices that must be made and leaves very little room for interpretation or doubt. It is a one or the other argument.
The Tiger argument is right down the middle because tigers can cause injury thus proving in certain situations that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet but is one specific instance in a case with many others.
The Trash bin argument leaves much open to interpretation and therefore has the least amount of support as it is all circumstantial really.
I think the Disney argument is the strongest bc it has clear definitions. Each term is finite in the way it is valued in the argument scheme. Members have fast pass. Pass has pre requisites.
Tiger argument is weak in the fact that tigers "can" cause serious injury. They may not definitely cause that injury. However, the conclusion is also not a strong claim either so the premise is analogous to its conclusion
Trash bin is the weakest bc the subjects, fat cat and food, have no real link with each other in the passage. They were merely in the same vicinity. To reiterate my previous point, the definitions of each subject are unclear. Does Mr. Fat Cat only lick his paw after eating salmon? That would be stronger support. Do we even know if salmon is missing from the floor? There is no indication of the action of eating at all.
I believe Disney is the strongest argument because it has the evidence and a supporting argument that can be inferred from it. This contains a premise, conclusion, and a support.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because it can't be inferred that Mr. Fat Cat intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within just because he was on the counter cleaning himself -- that is a weak claim.
The argument of tigers is also a strong argument, containing both a premise and a conclusion. Although, what would make it stronger is maybe a support that further highlights the conclusion.
What makes an argument stronger is strength of the connection between the premises and the conclusion.
In the tiger argument, it is explained that tigers (one example of mammals) are aggressive and can cause serious injury to people. Therefore, we can conclude that it is true that "not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
In the trash bin argument, we aren't given any solid premise that connects Mr. Cat's post-eating customs to the contents of the trash bin being spilled/ Mr. Fat Cat being guilty of making this happen. For example, there isn't a connection between Mr. Fat Cat eating and anything having been eaten out of the trash.
I don't know if I made any sense, but I gave it a shot.
I was between Tiger and Disney for the strongest. Definitely not Trash Bin Cat, because the cat could have eaten the salmon after it was knocked over by another entity. Showing motive for the cat as support would strengthen the argument, but as is, there is room for doubt.
Tiger has support, but its brief. Tigers qualify as "some" mammals (albeit its just one species). Disney seems the strongest because it outlines two limited + specific options for how to get the Genie+ Pass. Walt didn't do one, so he must have done the other. It feels, intuitively and logically, the strongest to me.
The strongest might be the Tiger Argument due to its strong premise. Even though it is one premise, it strongly supports the conclusion. The Disney argument could be the second strongest because of the premises that support the conclusion: walt being a member, having a Genie + pass, never done prostrating before.
Detective argument seems weakest to me because it is based on a set of observed insights, but there is no certain premise that supports the conclusion.
okay, after watching the vid and reading the comments, it does make sense that Disney one is strongest. There were two ways to access the Genie+, either offering ten goats' worth of propitiations to MM or prostrating before Goofy's altar. Walt never prostrated, so obviously he "must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse"
Tiger should be second because if you compare it to Disney, it relies on only one premise to support the conclusion,
The Disney one exhausts other options, making it the strongest. The tiger one has the strongest support (assumed true) as a pet that is aggressive and can cause serious injury would not be suitable as a pet. The Trash Bin is the weakest because there is room for doubt. There is no conclusive evidence, only circumstantial pointing towards the cat, but maybe he ate the salmon after the trash bin had already fallen from another cause? or maybe Mr. Fat Cat had eaten something else other than the salmon? There is lots of doubt on the Trash Bin argument whereas Disney leaves no room for doubt.
For each prompt, I considered where there was room for doubt. The more room for doubt, the weaker the argument. I searched for key phrases such as "all" "most" some" to note what was.
In Disney's, the options were written as some people do X and then ALL other people do Y. Once the author excluded X, the only other foreseeable option was Y.
I believe that the trash bin argument is weak because it still allows room for the reader to make claim in there own head on how it Mr. Fat is not the culprit.
In another post I thought Tiger one was pretty strong cause it got to the point but now I see that it not so strong cause the conclusion is pretty vague since there are many mammals. The premise only specify one type of mammal.
I say that Disney is strong because it leave you with no other choice but to believe. Walt only had two options if he didn't do one then he had to the other.
i believe that the strength of the argument is determined by how much or little room there is for another option. for the disney, it is almost definite befcause there are only 2 options and one of them is ruled out (prostrating at the temple) leaving only the option of the conclusion. for the tiger, there is not much to be said about unsuitable pets since it is assumed that tigers (which are mammals) are aggressive and dangerous to people. but the last one, about the cat, does lead one to maybe guess that the cat got into the food but the premise alone cannot prove it therefore leaving more options available. i.e. the cat found a mouse in the wall and ate that and is licking its mouth but had nothing to do with the spilled plate which was knocked over some other way.
I think the Disney arguement is the most strong arguement because based on the laid out logic, there is no room for doubt. It's an absolute truth that Mr Walt did not prostrate himself before Goofy's altar. The only other way Walt can obtain access to Genie+ is by offering ten goats' worth of propitiations. The detective arguement leans heavily on assumption, versus either/or logic. You must infer from the provided details that Mr. Fat Cat indulged because of circumstantial evidence, but there is room for doubt.
Weakest is the trash argument, because what if he has eaten something that did not involve toppling the trash over? What if that is how he normally eats? The strongest is the walt argument because it rules out what he didnt need to do to get a genie pass, and the other thing that is required to get a genie pass is ruled in
The Disney argument provides two options and we are made aware one of them is no longer possible. We are also told that the only conclusion possible by these two arguments has been accomplished, meaning that it could have only been achieved using the argument that has not been touched yet. With the Tiger we are given a reason for why the argument is agued correct, but what makes this a weaker argument is that it is something that can be unlikely. Finally, for the detective we aren't given information that allows us to eliminate any other variables, instead we are simply given some amount of context on why it is believed our arguement is correct. A guess.
The strongest arguments do nor provide room for any other conclusion to be true, as is in the Disney argument.
The Tiger argument has premises that are essentially always true, but COULD rarely not the case in certain extenuating circumstances. For instance if someone WANTED their pet to cause injuries to some people, then the conclusion is no longer supported.
The Detective argument is the weakest because while the premises are suggestive and consistent with the conclusion, there is still a strong possibility the cat could be innocent.
Disney must be the strongest because it identifies all parties who use the app: those who go the mickey route, and "ALL other members" who go the Goofy route. Tiger is weaker because of the word "can".
I think this might relate to entailment. If a specific conclusion MUST be true, i.e., it is entailed by the premises, then that is the strongest kind of argument. We could have predicted the conclusion of the Disney argument just from the premises alone.
Other conclusions aren’t necessarily entailed by their premises, but the premises provide support that the conclusion COULD be true. Mr. Fat Cat COULD have knocked over the trash can, but maybe Mrs. Skinny Dog knocked it over and Mr. Fat Cat just picked up some of the spilled salmon. The conclusion is supported, but it’s not the only possible conclusion to draw.
The tiger example feels like it’s in between. It makes a less strong claim in the conclusion (“not all” mammals is very broad), but the support is sufficient to entail the conclusion. As long as we can name ONE mammal that’s not fit to keep as a pet, we have a sound argument. We might not have been able to predict the exact conclusion just given the premise alone, but given both the premise and conclusion the flow of support is clear.
Some arguments can be stronger than others when the premises compound to justify each other, revealing a world that makes the conclusion unarguably true
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.
352 comments
The Disney argument provides enough support to funnel the viewer into a specific conclusion based off how the support cancels out other conclusions to the observation.
The Tiger argument provides only one supporting statement, however, the conclusion from the author correlates directly to the cause.
The Trash Bin argument doesn't include other sources that could have tipped over the trash can. It is taking prior experience with the cat and applying that hypothesis to the current situation which leaves the viewer questioning if that was the only conclusion that could be drawn.
The Disney argument essentially funnels you into a one of two choices that must be made and leaves very little room for interpretation or doubt. It is a one or the other argument.
The Tiger argument is right down the middle because tigers can cause injury thus proving in certain situations that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet but is one specific instance in a case with many others.
The Trash bin argument leaves much open to interpretation and therefore has the least amount of support as it is all circumstantial really.
I think the Disney argument is the strongest bc it has clear definitions. Each term is finite in the way it is valued in the argument scheme. Members have fast pass. Pass has pre requisites.
Tiger argument is weak in the fact that tigers "can" cause serious injury. They may not definitely cause that injury. However, the conclusion is also not a strong claim either so the premise is analogous to its conclusion
Trash bin is the weakest bc the subjects, fat cat and food, have no real link with each other in the passage. They were merely in the same vicinity. To reiterate my previous point, the definitions of each subject are unclear. Does Mr. Fat Cat only lick his paw after eating salmon? That would be stronger support. Do we even know if salmon is missing from the floor? There is no indication of the action of eating at all.
I believe Disney is the strongest argument because it has the evidence and a supporting argument that can be inferred from it. This contains a premise, conclusion, and a support.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because it can't be inferred that Mr. Fat Cat intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within just because he was on the counter cleaning himself -- that is a weak claim.
The argument of tigers is also a strong argument, containing both a premise and a conclusion. Although, what would make it stronger is maybe a support that further highlights the conclusion.
What makes an argument stronger is strength of the connection between the premises and the conclusion.
In the tiger argument, it is explained that tigers (one example of mammals) are aggressive and can cause serious injury to people. Therefore, we can conclude that it is true that "not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
In the trash bin argument, we aren't given any solid premise that connects Mr. Cat's post-eating customs to the contents of the trash bin being spilled/ Mr. Fat Cat being guilty of making this happen. For example, there isn't a connection between Mr. Fat Cat eating and anything having been eaten out of the trash.
I don't know if I made any sense, but I gave it a shot.
I was between Tiger and Disney for the strongest. Definitely not Trash Bin Cat, because the cat could have eaten the salmon after it was knocked over by another entity. Showing motive for the cat as support would strengthen the argument, but as is, there is room for doubt.
Tiger has support, but its brief. Tigers qualify as "some" mammals (albeit its just one species). Disney seems the strongest because it outlines two limited + specific options for how to get the Genie+ Pass. Walt didn't do one, so he must have done the other. It feels, intuitively and logically, the strongest to me.
The strongest might be the Tiger Argument due to its strong premise. Even though it is one premise, it strongly supports the conclusion. The Disney argument could be the second strongest because of the premises that support the conclusion: walt being a member, having a Genie + pass, never done prostrating before.
Detective argument seems weakest to me because it is based on a set of observed insights, but there is no certain premise that supports the conclusion.
okay, after watching the vid and reading the comments, it does make sense that Disney one is strongest. There were two ways to access the Genie+, either offering ten goats' worth of propitiations to MM or prostrating before Goofy's altar. Walt never prostrated, so obviously he "must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse"
Tiger should be second because if you compare it to Disney, it relies on only one premise to support the conclusion,
Some arguments appear to be stronger than others because we may not have all the necessary information to make a fully informed conclusion
The Disney one exhausts other options, making it the strongest. The tiger one has the strongest support (assumed true) as a pet that is aggressive and can cause serious injury would not be suitable as a pet. The Trash Bin is the weakest because there is room for doubt. There is no conclusive evidence, only circumstantial pointing towards the cat, but maybe he ate the salmon after the trash bin had already fallen from another cause? or maybe Mr. Fat Cat had eaten something else other than the salmon? There is lots of doubt on the Trash Bin argument whereas Disney leaves no room for doubt.
The less doubt the premises leave, and the more clearly they support the conclusion, the stronger the argument
@moelleux writing this down lol
For each prompt, I considered where there was room for doubt. The more room for doubt, the weaker the argument. I searched for key phrases such as "all" "most" some" to note what was.
In Disney's, the options were written as some people do X and then ALL other people do Y. Once the author excluded X, the only other foreseeable option was Y.
@AleshaneeWebb That's a great way to think of it!
I believe that the trash bin argument is weak because it still allows room for the reader to make claim in there own head on how it Mr. Fat is not the culprit.
In another post I thought Tiger one was pretty strong cause it got to the point but now I see that it not so strong cause the conclusion is pretty vague since there are many mammals. The premise only specify one type of mammal.
I say that Disney is strong because it leave you with no other choice but to believe. Walt only had two options if he didn't do one then he had to the other.
i believe that the strength of the argument is determined by how much or little room there is for another option. for the disney, it is almost definite befcause there are only 2 options and one of them is ruled out (prostrating at the temple) leaving only the option of the conclusion. for the tiger, there is not much to be said about unsuitable pets since it is assumed that tigers (which are mammals) are aggressive and dangerous to people. but the last one, about the cat, does lead one to maybe guess that the cat got into the food but the premise alone cannot prove it therefore leaving more options available. i.e. the cat found a mouse in the wall and ate that and is licking its mouth but had nothing to do with the spilled plate which was knocked over some other way.
I think the Disney arguement is the most strong arguement because based on the laid out logic, there is no room for doubt. It's an absolute truth that Mr Walt did not prostrate himself before Goofy's altar. The only other way Walt can obtain access to Genie+ is by offering ten goats' worth of propitiations. The detective arguement leans heavily on assumption, versus either/or logic. You must infer from the provided details that Mr. Fat Cat indulged because of circumstantial evidence, but there is room for doubt.
I think the weakest arguments are the theory ones and the more factual ones are the strongest but you cannot argue against them.
Weakest is the trash argument, because what if he has eaten something that did not involve toppling the trash over? What if that is how he normally eats? The strongest is the walt argument because it rules out what he didnt need to do to get a genie pass, and the other thing that is required to get a genie pass is ruled in
Weakest: Trash argument because it is a "hypothesis", an observation rather than proof.
Strongest: Disney, cause it is fact that Walt didn't access the pass through the premise, so the conclusion proves he had to get it another way.
The Disney argument provides two options and we are made aware one of them is no longer possible. We are also told that the only conclusion possible by these two arguments has been accomplished, meaning that it could have only been achieved using the argument that has not been touched yet. With the Tiger we are given a reason for why the argument is agued correct, but what makes this a weaker argument is that it is something that can be unlikely. Finally, for the detective we aren't given information that allows us to eliminate any other variables, instead we are simply given some amount of context on why it is believed our arguement is correct. A guess.
the disney one eliminates the alternatives, tiger leaves the option for an unlikely but possible alternative and the detective is a guess
The strongest argument notes possible alternative conclusions, but still weeds them out.
The strongest arguments do nor provide room for any other conclusion to be true, as is in the Disney argument.
The Tiger argument has premises that are essentially always true, but COULD rarely not the case in certain extenuating circumstances. For instance if someone WANTED their pet to cause injuries to some people, then the conclusion is no longer supported.
The Detective argument is the weakest because while the premises are suggestive and consistent with the conclusion, there is still a strong possibility the cat could be innocent.
Disney must be the strongest because it identifies all parties who use the app: those who go the mickey route, and "ALL other members" who go the Goofy route. Tiger is weaker because of the word "can".
I think because 2 is a if not then answer, 1 is required the assumption that tigers are mammals and then the third is more of a inference
I think this might relate to entailment. If a specific conclusion MUST be true, i.e., it is entailed by the premises, then that is the strongest kind of argument. We could have predicted the conclusion of the Disney argument just from the premises alone.
Other conclusions aren’t necessarily entailed by their premises, but the premises provide support that the conclusion COULD be true. Mr. Fat Cat COULD have knocked over the trash can, but maybe Mrs. Skinny Dog knocked it over and Mr. Fat Cat just picked up some of the spilled salmon. The conclusion is supported, but it’s not the only possible conclusion to draw.
The tiger example feels like it’s in between. It makes a less strong claim in the conclusion (“not all” mammals is very broad), but the support is sufficient to entail the conclusion. As long as we can name ONE mammal that’s not fit to keep as a pet, we have a sound argument. We might not have been able to predict the exact conclusion just given the premise alone, but given both the premise and conclusion the flow of support is clear.
Some arguments can be stronger than others when the premises compound to justify each other, revealing a world that makes the conclusion unarguably true