The Disney argument works well because it outlines a framework for the argument that the other two do not have. There are clear facts and a process at work. If one thing is true the other is not. Therefore if one set of circumstances is met it is because the other is not.
The tiger argument is weaker because it is basing the argument on one species of animal and providing two supporting premises that one can find flaws with. Not all tigers behave the same way and not all tigers are inherently aggressive. For example tigers in zoos do not all maul their handlers on sight and just because a tiger can cause serious injuries doesn't mean it will. The same argument could be made for a human being. One could make the argument that the institution that keeps the tigers has in a way made them pets for educational purposes.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because the evidence is circumstantial. Because there is nobody else to point a finger at, the cat is accused of the behavior, but the cat could have come in after the trash bin was knocked over. Or the cat could have eaten something else ignoring the trash altogether.
The Disney argument is the most clear and leads you to the conclusion without doubt (two possibilities in the premise, if its not one then it is the other). Then the tiger one still stong but not as much because it states tigers are aggressive and "can" cause serious injuries to people (does not say they always do). Maybe they could be suitable pets if people are very cautious. The trash bin example is pretty weak as it states the cat must have knocked the bin over to eat when the premise shows no support of intentionallt dropping the bin. Maybe the cat is responsible for eating the fish but did not drop the bin himself. This argument is clearly the weakest one as it goes off an assumption more than what the premise presents.
some arguments are stronger than other because the premises are stronger which lead to a valid conclusion. Also, if your premise are strong which lead to a valid conclusion that is good support for your argument.
Some arguments are stronger than others due to the strength of evidence they possess. The disney argument has evidence that because this did not happen, this must have. The tiger argument is short but has strong evidence. The cat argument is making an assumption, using evidence from personal knowledge. An outside viewer cannot know for sure the cat licks his paws after eating.
The trash was simply a hypothesis based on evidence. The tiger is an assumption. The Disney one is the strongest because it gives you two options for one conclusion, and rules out one of the options, leaving you with only one left. the correct one
I think the Trash Bin was the weakest because it offered a lot of details but not enough support or evidence to come to its conclusion (the cat was intentionally guilty). The trash bin could have fallen due to another circumstance, and the cat happened upon it. The Tiger argument came second to the Disney Club argument because, though it had a relevant premise to support its overall conclusion, it didn't have as much or even half as much of the support Disney's had. They were both good, one just had more layers that strengthened it compared to the other I believe.
I think the Disney argument forces me down one of two streets—if X only happens because either Y or Z.. then if not Y then Z. Or inversely if not Z then Y. No room for B, C, or D etc. that’s why its the strongest argument in my opinion.
The Tiger argument being second strongest (although confused me at first) does make sense to me being it gives me a clear description of what I’m supposed to view tigers as— aggressive. So I’m told to assume the conclusion based off that premise.
The trash bin argument being the weakest makes sense to me now. Nowhere in the argument does it state that the bin being knocked over and the cat being present is connected. I understand in reading that’s what I’m being told to theorize, but there’s not necessarily a strong support between the premise and the conclusion. It requires too much assumption. More assumption than the other two arguments. ,
I feel like the Disney one has so many concrete facts that ultimately corner the conclusion.
In the tiger one, the conclusion just seems so vast in comparison to what the premise is. There's also interesting word usage that can be debatable or conditional. They "can" cause serious injuries but they also "can not." What is "not every" what is "suitable"?
The trash bin one has facts embedded in maybes. There's also like micro-conclusions within that are based on other assumptions with everything working together to give 'reason to believe.'
Not sure if i'm making sense.
*btw it's my second day on this journey. I've been thinking about law school for 6 years! & this is my first comment! I'm having a blast.
Some arguments contain more support. Strong arguments premises have stronger relationships with little room for assumptions. The less flaws the logic contains the stronger the argument. The less noticeable the flaw the stronger the argument.
Is it because of the type of support the argument uses. I.e. Disney uses an either or, tiger uses a generalization, and trash bin relies on coincidence?
Tiger argument's claim, while accurate, relies on a specific instance within a larger generalization. Tigers are usually very aggressive though not always.
Trash bin relies entirely on suspicion without any tangible causal relationship. Who isn't to say that the bin was knocked over before Mr Fat Cat arrived on the scene? Is there no other time when Mr Fat Cat licks his paws?
The Disney argument has accounted for every possibility. In the world set up by this argument, it is impossible for Walt to have done anything other than offered 10 goats to Mickey.
The tiger argument offers one example that supports the claim that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. In other words, we have one reason to believe the claim. The reason is undeniable - we know tigers are aggressive - but it is not as strongly supported as the Disney argument.
The trash bin argument's premise is flawed. The cat being on the counter licking his paw could be completely coincidental. Maybe he just ate the food he is actually allowed to eat and then migrated to the counter. Maybe he's licking his paw just because he felt like it. You are making a leap in logic if you assume this evidence definitively proves the cat knocked over the trash bin.
Disney Vacation Club: Given the fact pattern, the only option the subject had was to give the goats to Walt.
Tigers: While the statement "Not every mammal..." is easy to defend, since it is possible that ANY mammal is not suitable to keep as a pet, the lack of evidence and support make it less reliable. It is the most simple, and is therefore easy to defend, but lacks support.
Trash Bin: Weak due to relying on circumstance to arrive to the conclusion rather than based in a series of undeniable facts/evidence.
Disney Vacation Club: Because Walt is confined to only two absolute options or confined to an Either this Or that function; it can be only one or the other, given the argument the strongest possible support.
Tigers: Though the argument is strong, a Tiger being dangerous is not an absolute reason it cannot be kept as a pet. After all, snakes are dangerous but are kept as pets, so the Tiger can be kept in a Cage as Pet.
This is the most flawed argument because it never states that Mr. Fat Cat licks its paw... "ONLY" after eating; for example, Mr. Fat Cat may lick its paw... after having eaten, after scratching the carpet, during an onset of tickles in its paw, before falling asleep...etc.
Disney Vacation Club: Is the strongest argument because it has definitive premises-- propitiation to Mickey Mouse or prostrating before Goofy's alter--- that support the conclusion that, so it leaves nearly no room for Walt to have received Genie+ pass other than the 2 options that were given.
Tigers: It is still strong, but not as strong as the Disney example. The conclusion that "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" is supported by an example of how the claim is true--tigers are dangerous and can cause injuries to people.
Trash Bin: It is an argument because it has reasonable claims to support the conclusion. However, the premises are not as strong because they leave room for other reasons as to why the defendant, Mr. Fat Cat, could have been perched on the counter licking his paw. There are numerous reasons, which we can argue, as to why the defendant was in that incriminating position above the "crime scene".
Disney is the strongest: it clearly defines there are only two ways to become a member. We know Walt did not take one route, so the only other way that all (important) members gain that pass can be how Walt did it.
Tigers is quite strong. But keeping someone (not something) as a pet varies depending upon the animal in our care. We need to look at this from not only what we need, but what the animal in our care needs. So, keeping tigers the same way as you would keep rescue kittens (ie in your bathroom, with a litter box and hourly bottle feedings) wouldn't make sense. But you can care for them as pets in another way.
Mr. Fat Cat - I mean... there are so many possibilities for how that situation may have ended up that way. Many reasonable possibilities.
1. Disney - I put Disney as my strongest argument because each claim made had an extremely strong support by another claim. Each premise was lined up in a way that, by elimination led to a very straight forward answer.
2. Tigers - I put Tigers as my second strongest argument, because their are not as many premises that can be backed as support for the conclusion. If it had the same level of specificity that the Disney example had, it could have been a stronger argument. However, because the conclusion is very general it is still a somewhat strong argument.
3. Trash Bin - I put the Trash Bin argument as the weakest. I did this because all the premises do support the conclusion that Mr. Fat Cat could be the guilty party, it is not supporting evidence to give it complete certainty. If additional evidence was added that Mr. Fat Cat, was fed dinner around the same time as when the trash bin in the kitchen toppled over it could destroy the validity of the argument. There is too much uncertainty in. this argument.
Disney - each claim that was made was supported by another claim, hence leading toward a very straight forward conclusion.
Tigers - Tigers being aggressive directly supports that they are not suitable to keep as a pet. It does hinge on the assumption that aggressiveness and causing injuries to people is not a suitable pet. It makes logical sense. but an assumption is needed to get there.
Many assumptions are needed to get to the conclusion that Mr. Fat Cat is guilty. What if he ate something else? Just because the salmon spilled, doesn't mean it is eaten. It is not mentioned that EVERY time he licks his paw, that means he's eaten. And how do you even know the cat's intentions? NONE of the claims are supported.
Disney is automatic and requires no assumptions to arrive straight at conclusion.
Tiger is intuitively strong but we must make some assumptions, and they can be debated, for example does aggressiveness, or the ability to cause injuries, always mean unsuitability?
Fat Cat is hypothetical - there is not one solid proof.
Disney - The premises laid out a set of "rules" or different "options" to get the end result and then told us that one of those options the Walt did not take, thus, strengthening the conclusion of the argument.
Tiger - This one, honestly, I just put it at the middle because the premise did support the conclusion but it was not that strong of a defense for it.
Trash Bin - I placed this last because the premises read, to me, like a bunch of assumptions that were weak. It felt room for doubt and not certainty.
my hypothesis is disney is strongest because there is evidence of walt offering requsite propitations because those who offered mickey something have a pass the rest dont.
i think tigers is second strongest because it supports the claim not every mammal is pet suitable.
and trash is weakest because as you already mentioned all these claims suggest the conclusion but are not definitive.
I ordered them correctly. I think some arguments are stronger than others because their premises are stronger. They could be stronger due to stronger language and or more detail given.
I ordered them correctly. I tried to be as skeptical as possible and find something wrong with each argument. My reasoning for Tiger being the strongest argument was how the author said "all other members must prostrate," meaning that Walt had to have given propitiations, or else there would be a fundamental flaw in the argument due to that must.
Just because a mammal is aggressive and can cause injury, does that fully mean it is not suitable to be a pet? What if we kept the Tiger secluded in the backyard under maximum security? What if we found mechanisms to feed and take care of the tiger without being in close proximity? While relatively unrealistic, I figured that a Tiger could still be kept as a pet under certain conditions, so the argument seemed a little weaker than Walt's.
For the Trash Bin, what if someone else tipped it over and the Cat simply ate the contents off the ground? Is licking his paw to clean his face ALWAYS preceded by having eaten? This argument, to me, had too many potential questions.
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.
312 comments
The Disney argument works well because it outlines a framework for the argument that the other two do not have. There are clear facts and a process at work. If one thing is true the other is not. Therefore if one set of circumstances is met it is because the other is not.
The tiger argument is weaker because it is basing the argument on one species of animal and providing two supporting premises that one can find flaws with. Not all tigers behave the same way and not all tigers are inherently aggressive. For example tigers in zoos do not all maul their handlers on sight and just because a tiger can cause serious injuries doesn't mean it will. The same argument could be made for a human being. One could make the argument that the institution that keeps the tigers has in a way made them pets for educational purposes.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because the evidence is circumstantial. Because there is nobody else to point a finger at, the cat is accused of the behavior, but the cat could have come in after the trash bin was knocked over. Or the cat could have eaten something else ignoring the trash altogether.
The Disney argument is the most clear and leads you to the conclusion without doubt (two possibilities in the premise, if its not one then it is the other). Then the tiger one still stong but not as much because it states tigers are aggressive and "can" cause serious injuries to people (does not say they always do). Maybe they could be suitable pets if people are very cautious. The trash bin example is pretty weak as it states the cat must have knocked the bin over to eat when the premise shows no support of intentionallt dropping the bin. Maybe the cat is responsible for eating the fish but did not drop the bin himself. This argument is clearly the weakest one as it goes off an assumption more than what the premise presents.
Assumption. I have to assume less in the Disney, followed by tiger, and then cat.
Studying for the LSAT in April, if anyone wants to make a discord study group and work on modules together lmk!
some arguments are stronger than other because the premises are stronger which lead to a valid conclusion. Also, if your premise are strong which lead to a valid conclusion that is good support for your argument.
Some arguments are stronger than others due to the strength of evidence they possess. The disney argument has evidence that because this did not happen, this must have. The tiger argument is short but has strong evidence. The cat argument is making an assumption, using evidence from personal knowledge. An outside viewer cannot know for sure the cat licks his paws after eating.
The trash was simply a hypothesis based on evidence. The tiger is an assumption. The Disney one is the strongest because it gives you two options for one conclusion, and rules out one of the options, leaving you with only one left. the correct one
I think the Trash Bin was the weakest because it offered a lot of details but not enough support or evidence to come to its conclusion (the cat was intentionally guilty). The trash bin could have fallen due to another circumstance, and the cat happened upon it. The Tiger argument came second to the Disney Club argument because, though it had a relevant premise to support its overall conclusion, it didn't have as much or even half as much of the support Disney's had. They were both good, one just had more layers that strengthened it compared to the other I believe.
I think the Disney argument forces me down one of two streets—if X only happens because either Y or Z.. then if not Y then Z. Or inversely if not Z then Y. No room for B, C, or D etc. that’s why its the strongest argument in my opinion.
The Tiger argument being second strongest (although confused me at first) does make sense to me being it gives me a clear description of what I’m supposed to view tigers as— aggressive. So I’m told to assume the conclusion based off that premise.
The trash bin argument being the weakest makes sense to me now. Nowhere in the argument does it state that the bin being knocked over and the cat being present is connected. I understand in reading that’s what I’m being told to theorize, but there’s not necessarily a strong support between the premise and the conclusion. It requires too much assumption. More assumption than the other two arguments. ,
I feel like the Disney one has so many concrete facts that ultimately corner the conclusion.
In the tiger one, the conclusion just seems so vast in comparison to what the premise is. There's also interesting word usage that can be debatable or conditional. They "can" cause serious injuries but they also "can not." What is "not every" what is "suitable"?
The trash bin one has facts embedded in maybes. There's also like micro-conclusions within that are based on other assumptions with everything working together to give 'reason to believe.'
Not sure if i'm making sense.
*btw it's my second day on this journey. I've been thinking about law school for 6 years! & this is my first comment! I'm having a blast.
Some arguments contain more support. Strong arguments premises have stronger relationships with little room for assumptions. The less flaws the logic contains the stronger the argument. The less noticeable the flaw the stronger the argument.
Is it because of the type of support the argument uses. I.e. Disney uses an either or, tiger uses a generalization, and trash bin relies on coincidence?
Disney argument leaves no room for error.
Tiger argument's claim, while accurate, relies on a specific instance within a larger generalization. Tigers are usually very aggressive though not always.
Trash bin relies entirely on suspicion without any tangible causal relationship. Who isn't to say that the bin was knocked over before Mr Fat Cat arrived on the scene? Is there no other time when Mr Fat Cat licks his paws?
Does this make sense?? How am I doing? Lol
The Disney argument has accounted for every possibility. In the world set up by this argument, it is impossible for Walt to have done anything other than offered 10 goats to Mickey.
The tiger argument offers one example that supports the claim that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. In other words, we have one reason to believe the claim. The reason is undeniable - we know tigers are aggressive - but it is not as strongly supported as the Disney argument.
The trash bin argument's premise is flawed. The cat being on the counter licking his paw could be completely coincidental. Maybe he just ate the food he is actually allowed to eat and then migrated to the counter. Maybe he's licking his paw just because he felt like it. You are making a leap in logic if you assume this evidence definitively proves the cat knocked over the trash bin.
Disney Vacation Club: Given the fact pattern, the only option the subject had was to give the goats to Walt.
Tigers: While the statement "Not every mammal..." is easy to defend, since it is possible that ANY mammal is not suitable to keep as a pet, the lack of evidence and support make it less reliable. It is the most simple, and is therefore easy to defend, but lacks support.
Trash Bin: Weak due to relying on circumstance to arrive to the conclusion rather than based in a series of undeniable facts/evidence.
Disney Vacation Club: Because Walt is confined to only two absolute options or confined to an Either this Or that function; it can be only one or the other, given the argument the strongest possible support.
Tigers: Though the argument is strong, a Tiger being dangerous is not an absolute reason it cannot be kept as a pet. After all, snakes are dangerous but are kept as pets, so the Tiger can be kept in a Cage as Pet.
This is the most flawed argument because it never states that Mr. Fat Cat licks its paw... "ONLY" after eating; for example, Mr. Fat Cat may lick its paw... after having eaten, after scratching the carpet, during an onset of tickles in its paw, before falling asleep...etc.
Disney Vacation Club: Is the strongest argument because it has definitive premises-- propitiation to Mickey Mouse or prostrating before Goofy's alter--- that support the conclusion that, so it leaves nearly no room for Walt to have received Genie+ pass other than the 2 options that were given.
Tigers: It is still strong, but not as strong as the Disney example. The conclusion that "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" is supported by an example of how the claim is true--tigers are dangerous and can cause injuries to people.
Trash Bin: It is an argument because it has reasonable claims to support the conclusion. However, the premises are not as strong because they leave room for other reasons as to why the defendant, Mr. Fat Cat, could have been perched on the counter licking his paw. There are numerous reasons, which we can argue, as to why the defendant was in that incriminating position above the "crime scene".
Disney is the strongest: it clearly defines there are only two ways to become a member. We know Walt did not take one route, so the only other way that all (important) members gain that pass can be how Walt did it.
Tigers is quite strong. But keeping someone (not something) as a pet varies depending upon the animal in our care. We need to look at this from not only what we need, but what the animal in our care needs. So, keeping tigers the same way as you would keep rescue kittens (ie in your bathroom, with a litter box and hourly bottle feedings) wouldn't make sense. But you can care for them as pets in another way.
Mr. Fat Cat - I mean... there are so many possibilities for how that situation may have ended up that way. Many reasonable possibilities.
My list of strongest to weakest.
1. Disney - I put Disney as my strongest argument because each claim made had an extremely strong support by another claim. Each premise was lined up in a way that, by elimination led to a very straight forward answer.
2. Tigers - I put Tigers as my second strongest argument, because their are not as many premises that can be backed as support for the conclusion. If it had the same level of specificity that the Disney example had, it could have been a stronger argument. However, because the conclusion is very general it is still a somewhat strong argument.
3. Trash Bin - I put the Trash Bin argument as the weakest. I did this because all the premises do support the conclusion that Mr. Fat Cat could be the guilty party, it is not supporting evidence to give it complete certainty. If additional evidence was added that Mr. Fat Cat, was fed dinner around the same time as when the trash bin in the kitchen toppled over it could destroy the validity of the argument. There is too much uncertainty in. this argument.
My list of strongest to weakest
Disney - each claim that was made was supported by another claim, hence leading toward a very straight forward conclusion.
Tigers - Tigers being aggressive directly supports that they are not suitable to keep as a pet. It does hinge on the assumption that aggressiveness and causing injuries to people is not a suitable pet. It makes logical sense. but an assumption is needed to get there.
Many assumptions are needed to get to the conclusion that Mr. Fat Cat is guilty. What if he ate something else? Just because the salmon spilled, doesn't mean it is eaten. It is not mentioned that EVERY time he licks his paw, that means he's eaten. And how do you even know the cat's intentions? NONE of the claims are supported.
Disney is automatic and requires no assumptions to arrive straight at conclusion.
Tiger is intuitively strong but we must make some assumptions, and they can be debated, for example does aggressiveness, or the ability to cause injuries, always mean unsuitability?
Fat Cat is hypothetical - there is not one solid proof.
I listed the strongest to weakest like so:
Disney - The premises laid out a set of "rules" or different "options" to get the end result and then told us that one of those options the Walt did not take, thus, strengthening the conclusion of the argument.
Tiger - This one, honestly, I just put it at the middle because the premise did support the conclusion but it was not that strong of a defense for it.
Trash Bin - I placed this last because the premises read, to me, like a bunch of assumptions that were weak. It felt room for doubt and not certainty.
support is gradient
some are weak some are strong
my hypothesis is disney is strongest because there is evidence of walt offering requsite propitations because those who offered mickey something have a pass the rest dont.
i think tigers is second strongest because it supports the claim not every mammal is pet suitable.
and trash is weakest because as you already mentioned all these claims suggest the conclusion but are not definitive.
I ordered them correctly. I think some arguments are stronger than others because their premises are stronger. They could be stronger due to stronger language and or more detail given.
I ordered them correctly. I tried to be as skeptical as possible and find something wrong with each argument. My reasoning for Tiger being the strongest argument was how the author said "all other members must prostrate," meaning that Walt had to have given propitiations, or else there would be a fundamental flaw in the argument due to that must.
Just because a mammal is aggressive and can cause injury, does that fully mean it is not suitable to be a pet? What if we kept the Tiger secluded in the backyard under maximum security? What if we found mechanisms to feed and take care of the tiger without being in close proximity? While relatively unrealistic, I figured that a Tiger could still be kept as a pet under certain conditions, so the argument seemed a little weaker than Walt's.
For the Trash Bin, what if someone else tipped it over and the Cat simply ate the contents off the ground? Is licking his paw to clean his face ALWAYS preceded by having eaten? This argument, to me, had too many potential questions.