Some arguments can be stronger than others when the premises compound to justify each other, revealing a world that makes the conclusion unarguably true
The Disney arguement is the stronges because it addresses all of the possibilities of the Genie+ pass before concluding Walt's connection with the pass. There seems to be only two ways to get the pass: offer ten goats' worth of proriation to Michey Mouse or selt-postration at Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom. The conclusion proves that Walt did not partake in the second option because he did not postrate himself at Goofy's altar.
The tiger argument is mediocre due to the fact that its premise uses a tiger to conclude a statement about all mammals.
The trash bin argument is a weak argument because the premise does not prove the conclusion to be true.
To me, the trash bin, seemed like you could poke holes in the premises, which made the argument weak in comparison to the other two stimuli, the premise were stronger in supporting conclusion in that world.
I believe the Disney Argument is the strongest due to the irrefutable support it offers. Meaning, anytime I would consider, hm but what about this flaw? It would refute it with more support. Until finally offering the conclusion.
Once I decided the “strongest,” I considered Trash Bin Vs. Tiger Argument. This is where I determined the Trash Bin argument felt very “persuasive” and “believe me because I’m a detective,” which an earlier lesson told us a persuasive argument does not equal a strong argument whereas I felt the Tiger argument was stronger though shorter.
I would argue that the Disney vacation club is the strongest because its premises account for 'all' eventualities. To get the pass you must have done either a or b. Additionally, it is extremely detailed in conveying its logical steps. I would argue that the tiger argument is supported, but there are grounds for 'yeah but' that are not quite covered by the writer. For instance, we must make the assumption that aggression is tied to insuitability. We must tie that to be a pet, the animal cannot kill people. The argument also leaves ground for someone saying, well, what if the tiger is tame, what is other animals that are well-known pets like dogs or cat cause injuries to people? It is easier to dismantle the argument. The trash bin argument does a decent job of qualifying the claim ('my hypothesis is') but it falls into the same 'yeah but' problem as the tiger one. What is there was a strong breeze in the kitchen for some reason? What if someone broke in? What if the dog knocked down the trashcan? As the argument does not account for these questions, it is severely weakened.
My hypothesis of why the tiger argument is stronger than the cat one is because the tiger does fulfill the mammal requirement, so almost like its chains correctly.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it leads you directly to the conclusion and how we got there because it only gives you one other option and it’s very direct than detailed.
The tiger example is thesecond strongest because it does give a good example but it’s broad as well as it doesn’t really define the word suitable and some people might actually be able to have a tiger and not something else. It just is too broad and I feel like if they were to make this example more detailed, it would be better.
The trashbin example is last because although it does give an example of how the cat usually does that after he eats, we’re just assuming that he knocked the bin over the bin could’ve been top because of something else. It could’ve been too heavy, or someone else may have hit it. For example, the cat could’ve literally just eaten its food somewhere else and then gotten on the counter and started licking his paw while the bin was already topped over. We can’t base the conclusion of it being his fault with a hypothesis when there is no evidence if there were to have been cat scratches or paw prints on the outside of the trashcan that’s different if the cat was licking salmon from dinner off of his paws and you saw that it was orange that would be different, but all we’re doing is assuming which is why that’s the weakest example
Tigers: Presumes that a small group (tigers) is representative of the population (animals).
Trash Bin: It's hard to put a exact reason for me, but I'd say there is an assumption that just because he is licking his paw as if eaten, means he must've eaten, and thereby spilling trash.
Inference vs misrepresentation led me to think tigers is weakest of the three.
the "suitability" is not clearly defined in the conclusion. It can very well be subjective i.e. what is suitable to me might not be suitable to you. "Suitable" here is a vague term, pointing to nothing definite.
"Aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" is just a fact and does not support suitability and unsuitability in the conclusion. For instance, I might have a cage at home or I can bring a timid breed of tigers that only eats things that I give.
What can make the argument fool proof would be the necessary assumption that ties these to missing links: "Aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" is not suitable. Then the argument will be fool proof.
The first argument is the strongest due to the way the facts help conclude how Walt has the Genie pass via process of elimination. There's only two possibilities as to how Walt obtained it.
The second argument provides the conclusion and an example to support the conclusion, instead of listing mammals that do work as pets.
The third doesn't provide evidence that the cat actually pushed the trash bin, rather it just provided assumptions. It tries to use the cats past actions to support the argument.
The first argument is the strongest because the relationship between the conclusion and the premises are multifaceted. It provides a wealth of evidence to increase the likelihood that Walt offered the ten goats.
The second argument is strong because it provides a coherent basis to increase the likelihood that not every mammal is safe to keep as a pet. By drawing on the natural instincts of these animals, the prompt establishes support for its claim.
The third argument is not the strongest because it hinges on circumstantial evidence. In the given scenario, there may exist a correlation between the scene and the cat, but it does not necessarily mean that the cat was the cause. Therefore, by concluding that the cat was the reason without ironclad proof, this argument is undoubtedly the weakest.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it is the most organized, covers all angles, and leaves no room for speculation. It provides two possibilities, and then clearly states option A is not true, so option B would have to be true.
The tiger argument is the second strongest. While on the surface it is a valid premise and conclusion, it is phrased more broadly. You can argue about the definition of "suitable". If you live in a mega mansion and the aggressive animal is kept in a cage, then technically an aggressive tiger could be suitable for you. I would say that is the main flaw. You could argue about how not all tigers are aggressive, but even then the fact that some are would support the conclusion of not all mammals being suitable pets. I think the flaw lies in the broadness of the conclusion and the ability to pick it apart where the premise doesn't support it. The Disney argument is more uniformly true and specific.
Then the final argument is clearly the least strong because the evidence is massively speculative and just overall weak.
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?
Does this make sense?? How am I doing? Lol
7
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.
325 comments
Some arguments can be stronger than others when the premises compound to justify each other, revealing a world that makes the conclusion unarguably true
The Disney arguement is the stronges because it addresses all of the possibilities of the Genie+ pass before concluding Walt's connection with the pass. There seems to be only two ways to get the pass: offer ten goats' worth of proriation to Michey Mouse or selt-postration at Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom. The conclusion proves that Walt did not partake in the second option because he did not postrate himself at Goofy's altar.
The tiger argument is mediocre due to the fact that its premise uses a tiger to conclude a statement about all mammals.
The trash bin argument is a weak argument because the premise does not prove the conclusion to be true.
To me, the trash bin, seemed like you could poke holes in the premises, which made the argument weak in comparison to the other two stimuli, the premise were stronger in supporting conclusion in that world.
I believe the Disney Argument is the strongest due to the irrefutable support it offers. Meaning, anytime I would consider, hm but what about this flaw? It would refute it with more support. Until finally offering the conclusion.
Once I decided the “strongest,” I considered Trash Bin Vs. Tiger Argument. This is where I determined the Trash Bin argument felt very “persuasive” and “believe me because I’m a detective,” which an earlier lesson told us a persuasive argument does not equal a strong argument whereas I felt the Tiger argument was stronger though shorter.
Thats my hypothesis.
I would argue that the Disney vacation club is the strongest because its premises account for 'all' eventualities. To get the pass you must have done either a or b. Additionally, it is extremely detailed in conveying its logical steps. I would argue that the tiger argument is supported, but there are grounds for 'yeah but' that are not quite covered by the writer. For instance, we must make the assumption that aggression is tied to insuitability. We must tie that to be a pet, the animal cannot kill people. The argument also leaves ground for someone saying, well, what if the tiger is tame, what is other animals that are well-known pets like dogs or cat cause injuries to people? It is easier to dismantle the argument. The trash bin argument does a decent job of qualifying the claim ('my hypothesis is') but it falls into the same 'yeah but' problem as the tiger one. What is there was a strong breeze in the kitchen for some reason? What if someone broke in? What if the dog knocked down the trashcan? As the argument does not account for these questions, it is severely weakened.
My hypothesis of why the tiger argument is stronger than the cat one is because the tiger does fulfill the mammal requirement, so almost like its chains correctly.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it leads you directly to the conclusion and how we got there because it only gives you one other option and it’s very direct than detailed.
The tiger example is thesecond strongest because it does give a good example but it’s broad as well as it doesn’t really define the word suitable and some people might actually be able to have a tiger and not something else. It just is too broad and I feel like if they were to make this example more detailed, it would be better.
The trashbin example is last because although it does give an example of how the cat usually does that after he eats, we’re just assuming that he knocked the bin over the bin could’ve been top because of something else. It could’ve been too heavy, or someone else may have hit it. For example, the cat could’ve literally just eaten its food somewhere else and then gotten on the counter and started licking his paw while the bin was already topped over. We can’t base the conclusion of it being his fault with a hypothesis when there is no evidence if there were to have been cat scratches or paw prints on the outside of the trashcan that’s different if the cat was licking salmon from dinner off of his paws and you saw that it was orange that would be different, but all we’re doing is assuming which is why that’s the weakest example
Tigers: Presumes that a small group (tigers) is representative of the population (animals).
Trash Bin: It's hard to put a exact reason for me, but I'd say there is an assumption that just because he is licking his paw as if eaten, means he must've eaten, and thereby spilling trash.
Inference vs misrepresentation led me to think tigers is weakest of the three.
The reason why Tigers argument is flawed:
the "suitability" is not clearly defined in the conclusion. It can very well be subjective i.e. what is suitable to me might not be suitable to you. "Suitable" here is a vague term, pointing to nothing definite.
"Aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" is just a fact and does not support suitability and unsuitability in the conclusion. For instance, I might have a cage at home or I can bring a timid breed of tigers that only eats things that I give.
What can make the argument fool proof would be the necessary assumption that ties these to missing links: "Aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people" is not suitable. Then the argument will be fool proof.
The first argument is the strongest due to the way the facts help conclude how Walt has the Genie pass via process of elimination. There's only two possibilities as to how Walt obtained it.
The second argument provides the conclusion and an example to support the conclusion, instead of listing mammals that do work as pets.
The third doesn't provide evidence that the cat actually pushed the trash bin, rather it just provided assumptions. It tries to use the cats past actions to support the argument.
The first argument is the strongest because the relationship between the conclusion and the premises are multifaceted. It provides a wealth of evidence to increase the likelihood that Walt offered the ten goats.
The second argument is strong because it provides a coherent basis to increase the likelihood that not every mammal is safe to keep as a pet. By drawing on the natural instincts of these animals, the prompt establishes support for its claim.
The third argument is not the strongest because it hinges on circumstantial evidence. In the given scenario, there may exist a correlation between the scene and the cat, but it does not necessarily mean that the cat was the cause. Therefore, by concluding that the cat was the reason without ironclad proof, this argument is undoubtedly the weakest.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it is the most organized, covers all angles, and leaves no room for speculation. It provides two possibilities, and then clearly states option A is not true, so option B would have to be true.
The tiger argument is the second strongest. While on the surface it is a valid premise and conclusion, it is phrased more broadly. You can argue about the definition of "suitable". If you live in a mega mansion and the aggressive animal is kept in a cage, then technically an aggressive tiger could be suitable for you. I would say that is the main flaw. You could argue about how not all tigers are aggressive, but even then the fact that some are would support the conclusion of not all mammals being suitable pets. I think the flaw lies in the broadness of the conclusion and the ability to pick it apart where the premise doesn't support it. The Disney argument is more uniformly true and specific.
Then the final argument is clearly the least strong because the evidence is massively speculative and just overall weak.
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