The premises in the Disney argument make it so that the conclusion MUST be true. It's a guarantee, it's locked in. The premise of the tiger argument makes the conclusion more likely to be true. The trash can argument premises establish that the conclusion COULD be true, but not that it MUST BE or even that it likely is. There's the most room for holes and doubt in between.
@TSpriester This comment clarified things for me. The logic is a little tortured but you could imagine a world where tigers could be trained to not be aggressive anymore (not saying this is true but it could be). According to the situation described in the Disney argument ,there is absolutely no possibility that Walt did not offer the necessary goats to Mickey Mouse.
The Disney argument is the strongest because the premises it provides are "one must either do this or this to get this", meaning that if you do not do one thing to get the Genie+ pass, then you certainly did the other in order to get the pass. The argument provides concrete support showing that the only way Walt Disney got the pass but did not prostrate himself in front of the altar, was by offering goats.
The Tiger argument is the second strongest because it provides the known fact that serves as the premises that tigers are aggressive, meaning they would not be in any a way a suitable pet. The premises for the Tiger argument are not as concrete as the premises are for the Disney argument because they are based on a generalization.
The Trash bin argument is the weakest argument of the three because it is based on more of an assumption than concrete support. The conclusion was based on seeing the fallen trash bin with the salmon missing and the cat being the most believable culprit. The passage also utilized the word "hypothesis" which means to be an educated guess; hence this argument was based on an educated guess.
The Disney argument is airtight. Assuming all the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow.
The Tiger argument requires some inferences: namely, that tigers are mammals; and that animals that are aggressive are not suitable to keep as pets. These things are TRUE in our world, but they are not premises of the argument. In a world where tigers aren't mammals and everyone loves dangerous pets, the argument is in jeopardy.
The Trash Bin argument similarly requires many inferences. Unlike the Tiger argument, the necessary Trash Bin inferences risk being untrue in OUR world as well.
The Disney vacation club has the strongest argument because there's only 2 possible ways to gain access to the fast pass. Since he has never prostrated anyone or anything, beyond a reasonable doubt, it's safe to conclude that the only possible option for him to have the fast pass is through offering up the goats, thus providing the strongest evidence.
The tigers argument provides the next best evidence because the conclusion drawn does not require a strong premises, thus providing a low burden of proof. To support the conclusion that "not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" only requires evidence of a single mammal that isn't suitable to keep as a pet to reach that conclusion, which the premises are successful at, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
The Trash bin provides the weakest evidence despite the overwhelming facts that would ordinarily paint the cat as responsible. Some doubt arises, however, as the cat was not caught in action tipping the trash bin over. It's possible, though unlikely given the facts, that something or someone else may have tipped the trash can over and ate the leftover salmon. This discrepancy could be utilized in favor of the cat.
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.
Some arguments are stronger than others because the support has less or no gaps, while other arguments might have some gaps which opens the door for alternative conclusions.
In this example, the Disney argument leaves no gaps, its either or. No in between. The Tiger argument is decent, the premise could allow different conclusions. But for the cat argument, although the support can lead to that the cat did indeed eat the salmon, it doesnt prove that the cat intentionally knocked over the trash, or that it knocked it over. Maybe something else did, and maybe the cat was eating something else.
I think it is because of the definitiveness of the arguments.
For the Disney argument, there are only 2 options in order to obtain the Genie Pass +; since he definitively did not do one, the other one MUST have happened.
For the Tigers argument, though it is true that not all mammals can be kept as pets because tigers are mammals and they would make bad pets. This answer is not as definitive because it still leaves it open to other mammals, the evidence used only accounts for a single species of mammals thus the sample is unrepresentative (and honestly, people have kept tigers are pets before successfully).
For the Fat Cat scenario, it is not definitive that the cat intentionally knocked over the trash can to eat the salmon. After all, the cat could have unintentionally knocked it over and eaten the salmon. The conclusion makes it so it must have been intentional for the cat to knock the bin which in turn makes the argument weaker because the premises might support the cat ate something but not that he did all the shenanigans mentioned to do so. Maybe he knocked it over and hit jackpot, maybe an owl knocked it over, or maybe the salmon fell out of the trash, you just don't know definitively.
Your comment put it into such great words! This really helped me grasp the concept about different levels of support in arguments and HOW they are supported.
The representation of other mammals in the tiger argument is a moot point, because the conclusion is that not all mammals are suitable pets. If it is true that one mammal is not suitable as pets, then the conclusion is also true that not all mammals are suitable as pets.
The argument is weak because it assumes that aggression and causing injuries to people makes being a pet unsuitable for that mammal. Remember, what we know about the real world doesn't matter. We know that violence makes a mammal unsuitable to be a pet, but the argument gives no evidence to support that, making it weaker than the Disney argument.
Arguments are stronger when there are fewer gaps and possible questions that can arise that poke at the hurdles taken to conclude. additionally when we use words like most verse, all you are either increasing the strength or leaving more room for it to be provable.
Hypothesis: The reason that the the disney argument is the strongest is because there is no assumption (unstated premises). The argument is valid. There is no way, given the premises and the conclusion that I can weaken this argument, or even strengthen for that matter. It is as definitive as 2 + 2 = 4. The conclusion is a must be true. For us to attempt to tear that argument would fallacious.
As for the second argument, the tigers argument. An important mechanism here is to translate the argument. Not every (some) mammals are not suitable pets. The idea of some here represents that in order for this conclusion to be true there just needs to be 1 mammal that is not a suitable pet. This is exactly what this argument attempts to do. A very solid attempt as matter of fact. But, not an airtight one. Given that tigers are aggressive and dangerous, on the superficial level, it seems that this proves the argument just as the interview argument does. However, can we say for certain that "if a mammal is aggressive and dangerous, then it is not a suitable pet?" Well, it depends, I can design a world where that is true and where that isn't. Therefore, this argument leaves me room to strengthen or weaken it, so it is not completely valid or airtight.
As for the trash bin argument. Look, it is not an absolute terrible argument, but is is far from strong. We have to make so many assumptions (unstated premises) to guarantee conclusion. Honestly, most of the conclusions that we can make would not guarantee the conclusions, it would only make it more likely to be true. There is a premise that would guarantee conclusion, and that would be as follows: The only reason that the trash bin would be knocked over is Mr. Fat Cat intentionally knocked over the bin to access the contents within. Compare this assumption with the assumption we made in the tigers argument, this one is more unreasonable, as compared to if a mammal is aggressive and dangerous then it is a unsuitable pet.
So if I didn't misread, for the tiger example you analyzed, does that mean you translated, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." into "Not every/Some mammals are not suitable pets."? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I asked myself, how likely is it that an alternative explanation would explain the conclusion. In other words, how essential are the premises to guarantee the truth of the conclusion? The cat argument fell flat because, while there is reason to speculate that the cat tipped the trash can, the evidence does not rule out other possibilities. The Disney argument feels completely different. We can reasonably conclude that there is only one way for Walt to have obtained the Genie+ pass. It would be extremely difficult to argue against the conclusion if we assume that the premises are true. The Tigers Argument is well reasoned, but the bridge from premise to conclusion is more implicit. For example, we have to assume that to qualify as a non-suitable pet, the animal must not be able to cause serious injury to people.
Disney- The premises 100 percent guarantee the conclusion because he is a genie plus fast pass holder and there are only 2 ways to achieve it A and B. He did not do A therefore he had to do B.
Tiger- It is strong but it does nut guarantee the conclusion the way the Disney one does. It shows one specific example of how a mammal can be dangerous but the evidence does not show how all mammals are dangerous.
Cat- The strongest evidence would have been seeing the cat tip over the garbage bin but since we don't have that we can only infer it based off the premises given to us. It is still possible the cat did not tip over the bin as maybe it ate something else and was reacting to that and something else tipped over the bin.
I think the cat argument is the weaker one due to the use of the word " intentionally". You cannot say he intentionally tipped it over without providing stronger evidence.
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.
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.
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 is the strongest because it has two clearly laid out rules that the conclusion must follow either one. The way the stimulus is structured, there is only one option for the conclusion to follow.
The Tiger argument is second strongest because premise and the conclusion doesn't have the same airtight rules as the Disney argument. There are more ways for the argument to go and the premise and conclusion doesn't seem to be as strong or airtight.
The Trash Bin is the weakest because there is no satisfactory support for the conclusion that Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party. The premises or the evidence is circumstantial at best.
Disney's argument is strongest because of the clear necessary-sufficient relationship in the argument. Walt having a Genie+ pass is sufficient for us to know that he must have completed one or both of the necessary conditions. Since we know that Walt has a Genie+ pass, then it must be true that he completed one (or both) of prostrating himself or sacc'ing the goats. Walt didn't prostrate himself before Goofy's alter, so he had to have done evil, evil things to ten goats. (I'm gonna be real I don't think I got the necessary-sufficient thing right because I never really felt like I got the explanation when it was given in high school, but the statement that follows remains true.)
Tigers is the middle strength argument because it presents evidence that can be entertained as a plausible explanation for why some mammals are not good pets. A pet that is prone to attacking me and can cause me very serious injury can be said to make for a poor domestic pet. Thus, not all mammals are suitable to keep as a pet. However, pets can be kept for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with behavior or the danger to the owner. Maybe I like the danger and challenge presented by keeping a tiger as a pet? In that case, neither the aggression nor the danger are barriers to owning a tiger as a pet. Therefore, the premise can still be true, but doesn't strongly support the conclusion that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. The danger and risk of injury actually increases the tiger's suitability as a pet.
Trash bin is the weakest because the evidence presented only suggests guilt, but doesn't directly validate it. For the claim made by the investigator to be true they have to show intent, action in reality, and possession. In other words, they need to prove that Mr. Fat Cat: (1) knocked over the bin; (2) did so with the intention of eating the salmon, and; (3) actually consumed (or took possession of) the salmon. To weaken the argument you can attack any of the three elements of the "crime" in question (in a variety of ways). The passage only presents circumstantial evidence of Mr. Fat Cat's guilt.
Disney is the strongest because it has the most detail and does not leave much room for doubt if any at all. We know for certain there are only two avenues to get Genie+, and for certain Walt did not do one, so it must be the other.
Tiger is next because although vague, there is still not much room for doubt. They are not saying that no animals are suitable to keep as a pet, just that not every mammal is. By providing the sound logic of a tiger, it is a fairly strong claim. Yet there is some doubt: What if you raised the tiger from birth and thus it is suitable to be a pet, just with some extra work?
Mr. Fat Cat has some claims that could allude to the conclusion being correct, that he knocked over the can, but we don't know for certain. What if someone else knocked over the can and Mr. Fat Cat took the opportunity to eat the fish inside?
Disney is air tight: you have two options, it can’t be one, therefore it is the other.
Tiger requires a slight leap in logic to link aggression/causing serious injury to suitability as a pet. Maybe someone values that in a pet for self-defense purposes. A Necessary Assumption AC for this would be something like, ‘A lack of aggression is required for mammals to be kept as pets’ or something like that
the first is pointing directly towards a causal relationship between the fast pass and Walt; given Walt has negated certain criteria required to have gained the fast pass in a certain manner, but still maintains the pass in general. Given that there is an alternative method to gaining the pass, we can conclude the one in Walt's possession came from that instance.
The tiger question, while there is a lacking in correlation between the instances, it promotes a causal relationship by means of the tigers attributes and the overall mammal population, which regards the terms 'suitable' and 'aggressive' in the same manner. Given that the tigers are mammals and the tigers are aggressive, we can assume the conclusion regarding mammals is referencing the premises of the tiger's attributes, or the tiger itself, thereby giving us the conclusion that the tiger is not a suitable pet.
The Cat question does not actual give any evidence to support the conclusion that the cat knocked over the trash can. Perhaps a force knocked over the can, but the cat eating salmon is ultimately dependent for the factor of the cat knocking over the trash can, therefore, we cannot conclude the cat knocked over the trash can, even if we can prove he ate the salmon, which is also unknown given the premises of the equation.
410 comments
The premises in the Disney argument make it so that the conclusion MUST be true. It's a guarantee, it's locked in. The premise of the tiger argument makes the conclusion more likely to be true. The trash can argument premises establish that the conclusion COULD be true, but not that it MUST BE or even that it likely is. There's the most room for holes and doubt in between.
@TSpriester Thank you so much for that. Gave me a lot of clarity.
@TSpriester thanks. Now it make sense.
@TSpriester is it because the trash bin is simply a "hypothesis" and not a matter of fact while Disney says "must have" making it 100% undeniable?
@TSpriester Wow. absolute bars right here. that made so much more sense
@TSpriester Excellently worded! Are you sure you aren't a lawyer already? lol.
@TSpriester This comment clarified things for me. The logic is a little tortured but you could imagine a world where tigers could be trained to not be aggressive anymore (not saying this is true but it could be). According to the situation described in the Disney argument ,there is absolutely no possibility that Walt did not offer the necessary goats to Mickey Mouse.
@JamesVartian Yes! It’s one possible explanation of many
@JamesVartian You got it!
The Disney argument is the strongest because the premises it provides are "one must either do this or this to get this", meaning that if you do not do one thing to get the Genie+ pass, then you certainly did the other in order to get the pass. The argument provides concrete support showing that the only way Walt Disney got the pass but did not prostrate himself in front of the altar, was by offering goats.
The Tiger argument is the second strongest because it provides the known fact that serves as the premises that tigers are aggressive, meaning they would not be in any a way a suitable pet. The premises for the Tiger argument are not as concrete as the premises are for the Disney argument because they are based on a generalization.
The Trash bin argument is the weakest argument of the three because it is based on more of an assumption than concrete support. The conclusion was based on seeing the fallen trash bin with the salmon missing and the cat being the most believable culprit. The passage also utilized the word "hypothesis" which means to be an educated guess; hence this argument was based on an educated guess.
The Disney argument is airtight. Assuming all the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow.
The Tiger argument requires some inferences: namely, that tigers are mammals; and that animals that are aggressive are not suitable to keep as pets. These things are TRUE in our world, but they are not premises of the argument. In a world where tigers aren't mammals and everyone loves dangerous pets, the argument is in jeopardy.
The Trash Bin argument similarly requires many inferences. Unlike the Tiger argument, the necessary Trash Bin inferences risk being untrue in OUR world as well.
This comment really helped me clarify the correct answer. Thank you!
The Disney vacation club has the strongest argument because there's only 2 possible ways to gain access to the fast pass. Since he has never prostrated anyone or anything, beyond a reasonable doubt, it's safe to conclude that the only possible option for him to have the fast pass is through offering up the goats, thus providing the strongest evidence.
The tigers argument provides the next best evidence because the conclusion drawn does not require a strong premises, thus providing a low burden of proof. To support the conclusion that "not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" only requires evidence of a single mammal that isn't suitable to keep as a pet to reach that conclusion, which the premises are successful at, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
The Trash bin provides the weakest evidence despite the overwhelming facts that would ordinarily paint the cat as responsible. Some doubt arises, however, as the cat was not caught in action tipping the trash bin over. It's possible, though unlikely given the facts, that something or someone else may have tipped the trash can over and ate the leftover salmon. This discrepancy could be utilized in favor of the cat.
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.
@Jbshallenberger This is really such a great way of putting it. This is how my brain made sense of analyzing the arguments.
Some arguments are stronger than others because the support has less or no gaps, while other arguments might have some gaps which opens the door for alternative conclusions.
In this example, the Disney argument leaves no gaps, its either or. No in between. The Tiger argument is decent, the premise could allow different conclusions. But for the cat argument, although the support can lead to that the cat did indeed eat the salmon, it doesnt prove that the cat intentionally knocked over the trash, or that it knocked it over. Maybe something else did, and maybe the cat was eating something else.
@RaniaQadi yeah and if the salmon was on the floor then how did the cat eat it? it doesn't say partially eaten salmon
I think it is because of the definitiveness of the arguments.
For the Disney argument, there are only 2 options in order to obtain the Genie Pass +; since he definitively did not do one, the other one MUST have happened.
For the Tigers argument, though it is true that not all mammals can be kept as pets because tigers are mammals and they would make bad pets. This answer is not as definitive because it still leaves it open to other mammals, the evidence used only accounts for a single species of mammals thus the sample is unrepresentative (and honestly, people have kept tigers are pets before successfully).
For the Fat Cat scenario, it is not definitive that the cat intentionally knocked over the trash can to eat the salmon. After all, the cat could have unintentionally knocked it over and eaten the salmon. The conclusion makes it so it must have been intentional for the cat to knock the bin which in turn makes the argument weaker because the premises might support the cat ate something but not that he did all the shenanigans mentioned to do so. Maybe he knocked it over and hit jackpot, maybe an owl knocked it over, or maybe the salmon fell out of the trash, you just don't know definitively.
greatly said. Thank you for posting this comment
love this comment thanks for sharing
Your comment put it into such great words! This really helped me grasp the concept about different levels of support in arguments and HOW they are supported.
The representation of other mammals in the tiger argument is a moot point, because the conclusion is that not all mammals are suitable pets. If it is true that one mammal is not suitable as pets, then the conclusion is also true that not all mammals are suitable as pets.
The argument is weak because it assumes that aggression and causing injuries to people makes being a pet unsuitable for that mammal. Remember, what we know about the real world doesn't matter. We know that violence makes a mammal unsuitable to be a pet, but the argument gives no evidence to support that, making it weaker than the Disney argument.
Arguments are stronger when there are fewer gaps and possible questions that can arise that poke at the hurdles taken to conclude. additionally when we use words like most verse, all you are either increasing the strength or leaving more room for it to be provable.
Hypothesis: The reason that the the disney argument is the strongest is because there is no assumption (unstated premises). The argument is valid. There is no way, given the premises and the conclusion that I can weaken this argument, or even strengthen for that matter. It is as definitive as 2 + 2 = 4. The conclusion is a must be true. For us to attempt to tear that argument would fallacious.
As for the second argument, the tigers argument. An important mechanism here is to translate the argument. Not every (some) mammals are not suitable pets. The idea of some here represents that in order for this conclusion to be true there just needs to be 1 mammal that is not a suitable pet. This is exactly what this argument attempts to do. A very solid attempt as matter of fact. But, not an airtight one. Given that tigers are aggressive and dangerous, on the superficial level, it seems that this proves the argument just as the interview argument does. However, can we say for certain that "if a mammal is aggressive and dangerous, then it is not a suitable pet?" Well, it depends, I can design a world where that is true and where that isn't. Therefore, this argument leaves me room to strengthen or weaken it, so it is not completely valid or airtight.
As for the trash bin argument. Look, it is not an absolute terrible argument, but is is far from strong. We have to make so many assumptions (unstated premises) to guarantee conclusion. Honestly, most of the conclusions that we can make would not guarantee the conclusions, it would only make it more likely to be true. There is a premise that would guarantee conclusion, and that would be as follows: The only reason that the trash bin would be knocked over is Mr. Fat Cat intentionally knocked over the bin to access the contents within. Compare this assumption with the assumption we made in the tigers argument, this one is more unreasonable, as compared to if a mammal is aggressive and dangerous then it is a unsuitable pet.
So if I didn't misread, for the tiger example you analyzed, does that mean you translated, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." into "Not every/Some mammals are not suitable pets."? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Stronger arguments require fewer assumptions to be made
I asked myself, how likely is it that an alternative explanation would explain the conclusion. In other words, how essential are the premises to guarantee the truth of the conclusion? The cat argument fell flat because, while there is reason to speculate that the cat tipped the trash can, the evidence does not rule out other possibilities. The Disney argument feels completely different. We can reasonably conclude that there is only one way for Walt to have obtained the Genie+ pass. It would be extremely difficult to argue against the conclusion if we assume that the premises are true. The Tigers Argument is well reasoned, but the bridge from premise to conclusion is more implicit. For example, we have to assume that to qualify as a non-suitable pet, the animal must not be able to cause serious injury to people.
@grantgreathouse that's exacly what I wanted to say but you articulate it wayyy better
I think it is Disney-Tiger- Cat in that order
Disney- The premises 100 percent guarantee the conclusion because he is a genie plus fast pass holder and there are only 2 ways to achieve it A and B. He did not do A therefore he had to do B.
Tiger- It is strong but it does nut guarantee the conclusion the way the Disney one does. It shows one specific example of how a mammal can be dangerous but the evidence does not show how all mammals are dangerous.
Cat- The strongest evidence would have been seeing the cat tip over the garbage bin but since we don't have that we can only infer it based off the premises given to us. It is still possible the cat did not tip over the bin as maybe it ate something else and was reacting to that and something else tipped over the bin.
I think the cat argument is the weaker one due to the use of the word " intentionally". You cannot say he intentionally tipped it over without providing stronger evidence.
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.
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.
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 is the strongest because it has two clearly laid out rules that the conclusion must follow either one. The way the stimulus is structured, there is only one option for the conclusion to follow.
The Tiger argument is second strongest because premise and the conclusion doesn't have the same airtight rules as the Disney argument. There are more ways for the argument to go and the premise and conclusion doesn't seem to be as strong or airtight.
The Trash Bin is the weakest because there is no satisfactory support for the conclusion that Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party. The premises or the evidence is circumstantial at best.
I feel like the Tiger argument is the strongest in my opinion.
@JohnAcosta This is what I thought too!!
My guess is that disney arguement explicitly states that there are two paths to getting the pass, and we know for a fact walt didn't use one of the.
For the tiger one, while it is true that tigers are often agressive, that doesn't mean that all tigers will always be aggressive.
Long post, sorry, but I'm long winded:
Disney's argument is strongest because of the clear necessary-sufficient relationship in the argument. Walt having a Genie+ pass is sufficient for us to know that he must have completed one or both of the necessary conditions. Since we know that Walt has a Genie+ pass, then it must be true that he completed one (or both) of prostrating himself or sacc'ing the goats. Walt didn't prostrate himself before Goofy's alter, so he had to have done evil, evil things to ten goats. (I'm gonna be real I don't think I got the necessary-sufficient thing right because I never really felt like I got the explanation when it was given in high school, but the statement that follows remains true.)
Tigers is the middle strength argument because it presents evidence that can be entertained as a plausible explanation for why some mammals are not good pets. A pet that is prone to attacking me and can cause me very serious injury can be said to make for a poor domestic pet. Thus, not all mammals are suitable to keep as a pet. However, pets can be kept for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with behavior or the danger to the owner. Maybe I like the danger and challenge presented by keeping a tiger as a pet? In that case, neither the aggression nor the danger are barriers to owning a tiger as a pet. Therefore, the premise can still be true, but doesn't strongly support the conclusion that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. The danger and risk of injury actually increases the tiger's suitability as a pet.
Trash bin is the weakest because the evidence presented only suggests guilt, but doesn't directly validate it. For the claim made by the investigator to be true they have to show intent, action in reality, and possession. In other words, they need to prove that Mr. Fat Cat: (1) knocked over the bin; (2) did so with the intention of eating the salmon, and; (3) actually consumed (or took possession of) the salmon. To weaken the argument you can attack any of the three elements of the "crime" in question (in a variety of ways). The passage only presents circumstantial evidence of Mr. Fat Cat's guilt.
god im him 3/3 typical exquisite performance
180 LSAT incoming!
Disney is the strongest because it has the most detail and does not leave much room for doubt if any at all. We know for certain there are only two avenues to get Genie+, and for certain Walt did not do one, so it must be the other.
Tiger is next because although vague, there is still not much room for doubt. They are not saying that no animals are suitable to keep as a pet, just that not every mammal is. By providing the sound logic of a tiger, it is a fairly strong claim. Yet there is some doubt: What if you raised the tiger from birth and thus it is suitable to be a pet, just with some extra work?
Mr. Fat Cat has some claims that could allude to the conclusion being correct, that he knocked over the can, but we don't know for certain. What if someone else knocked over the can and Mr. Fat Cat took the opportunity to eat the fish inside?
Exactly how I was trying to justify the arguments. Great point for my own studies that vague does not always correlate doubt.
thank you for this! i was struggling with the disney and tiger argument.
Disney is air tight: you have two options, it can’t be one, therefore it is the other.
Tiger requires a slight leap in logic to link aggression/causing serious injury to suitability as a pet. Maybe someone values that in a pet for self-defense purposes. A Necessary Assumption AC for this would be something like, ‘A lack of aggression is required for mammals to be kept as pets’ or something like that
Trash is pure speculation.
the first is pointing directly towards a causal relationship between the fast pass and Walt; given Walt has negated certain criteria required to have gained the fast pass in a certain manner, but still maintains the pass in general. Given that there is an alternative method to gaining the pass, we can conclude the one in Walt's possession came from that instance.
The tiger question, while there is a lacking in correlation between the instances, it promotes a causal relationship by means of the tigers attributes and the overall mammal population, which regards the terms 'suitable' and 'aggressive' in the same manner. Given that the tigers are mammals and the tigers are aggressive, we can assume the conclusion regarding mammals is referencing the premises of the tiger's attributes, or the tiger itself, thereby giving us the conclusion that the tiger is not a suitable pet.
The Cat question does not actual give any evidence to support the conclusion that the cat knocked over the trash can. Perhaps a force knocked over the can, but the cat eating salmon is ultimately dependent for the factor of the cat knocking over the trash can, therefore, we cannot conclude the cat knocked over the trash can, even if we can prove he ate the salmon, which is also unknown given the premises of the equation.
the stronger the argument the less guessing or assuming we need to do to support the argument