I am still confused on how the Tiger example is an argument since there was never a premise included that said a tiger is a mammal. It is also even more confusing because I know that we are not supposed to take into account our own knowledge, but it seems in this instance we are. Would be appreciative if anyone can help me understand this!
so basically when the premise doesn't give enough reason to fully believe the conclusion its a weak argument. sarah doesn't like meat, sarah doesn't like steak. weak argument because sarah might like steak even though she doesn't like other meats.
I really feel like the spectrum is backwards. I think it would be a lot more effective it was weak--->strong its more intuitive left to right. Does anybody know why they made it the opposite way?
in my opinion the tiger argument is just as strong as the disney one, even though it has more claims backing it up because its premise makes it that it MUST be true that not all mammals are suitable as pets, dont really see any room for doubt or devils advocacy .. any thoughts as to why I'm wrong
being pedantic, I would want to add one more premise to the disney argument in order to say that it must be true. we assume that the ONLY two ways to get genie + pass are the ones listed is the argument, but it is never stated within the argument that those are the only two ways to get a pass; for all we know, Walt could have stolen a pass or done some dark magic with Donald Duck. basically I would just want a premise stating that those are the only two ways to get a ass in order for me to believe that the argument must be true. “All other members” sort of implies it, but I would want stronger language to know he couldn’t steal it from someone
One thing that I just thought of for the Spectrum of Support lesson that I want to write down to see if it makes any sense is in some instances to think of the Spectrum of Support as percentages. For example, the conclusion of the Disney argument flows logically from the premises 100% of the time making it a strong or in this case valid argument. In contrast, if the premises only make the conclusion likely (say, 70-80% true) as in the case with the Tigers argument, the argument is still strong, just not entirely valid.
Might just be looking too far into it, but I don't understand why the tiger example is a strong argument. Obviously, the statement is true that tigers are mammals; however, there is no evidence given that the tiger is a mammal. If someone didn't know a tiger was a mammal, this argument would be incredibly weak. Is that just looking way too far into the argument?
In going back from a few lessons ago: Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time. Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras.
I still don't understand why this isn't an argument then if the spectrum of support allows inferences to be made. From my thought process, the details of "from various regions and eras" in the premise allow me to make an inference that human communication has existed universally, across different civilizations, and over time. While it may not be an airtight inference, the chosen words in the premise do seem to infer the conclusion's truth.
The strength of an argument derives from the probability that the premises increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true. On one side of the spectrum the premises give very strong support that the conclusion is true. Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum the premises gives very weak support that the conclusion is true. Most questions on the LSAT fall between these 2 extremities.
Ok, so I have a #question. I listed the arguments, from strongest to weakest, in Disney, Trash bin, and Tiger. Is trash bin and tiger switched because while we only have a hypothesis about the cat, we have actual evidence of tigers being aggressive and injuring others? Or is it something else?
While I understand the purpose that the Disney argument is supposed to serve in this example, I am struggling to accept the notion that it is a stronger argument than the tiger example.
Walt Disney could certainly bypass the Genie Pass standards/steps being that he is... Walt Disney. Because of this Walt loophole, the tiger example is more likely to be truth over the Disney example since I can't find a weak point in the support—Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. There is no counter to the logic of the tiger argument making it a "valid inference" as stated at the strongest point of the gradient.
It seems the tiger argument could be transformed from a strong inference to a valid one with the addition of more premises, but not necessarily new non-implied information e.g.:
1. Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
2. Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
3. No animal that is very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people is suitable to keep as a pet.
4. Tigers are mammals.
5. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
This adds new information to the argument, but does not fundamentally alter its form. Further, you could say the explicitly added premises were implicit before giving the inference its strength.
However, it seems the same could not be done for the cat argument. Even if the cat "always" licks its paws after eating, there is no way one could draw a line of logical necessity between the actions of the cat after eating with the act of knocking over the trashcan without the addition of significant, non-implied information that alters the argument significantly. Even if the cat always licks its paws after eating, and this is the only time it licks its paws, there is no way to validly infer that it was the salmon in the trashcan, not any other food that caused the paw-licking or that it was the cat that knocked over the trashcan.
Assuming a conclusion is not wholly unsupported, is this a good litmus test between strong and weak support?
What I am confused about is how the Tiger argument is weaker than the Disney argument. They seem equal to me: If tigers are a mammal, and an aggressive one, than yes, explicitly, not every mammal is suitable for being a pet. How is this argument any weaker than the Disney argument?
I learned that the spectrum of support is determined by one pivotal question "how much?"
How much does each premise support the conclusion. That is how to evaluate the strength of an argument. Disney argument is almost airtight as they present two possibilities and rule out one. Tiger argument is less effective because there are some assumptions made that make it less definitive. The trash bin argument is the least because it relies on suggestion/assumption and therefore has holes in the logic.
In this section, I learned that the spectrum of support can range between week to strong;
- The truthfulness of premises proceed the truthfulness of the conclusion.
- If premises are true, then conclusion is likely to be true. Strong Arguments are a restatement of valid inferences. Weak arguments are ones that are unsupported, hence are not valid.
- Truthfulness, or validity essentially all depends on the strength of the support of the premise.
All arguments fall in a section of hte part of the truthfulness and validity of arguments:
1. The Disney Argument is the strongest argument because of the strength of its premises, making it valid.
2. The Tiger Argument is a strong argument, that is most likely true, but can kind of change based on the premise + only one "real" premise is presented, so the strength of the argument is not as strong as the Disney Argument.
3. Fat Cat Argument is a weak argument because all of the premises are based on assumptions through observations, and not actual evidences, making the premises weak, resulting to a faulty conclusion, and is therefore, a weak argument overall.
Do the majority of LSAT arguments fall into most/somewhat likely true because those are the type of arguments lawyers deal with the most? Or do the LSAT writers do this to be as "tricky" as possible?
Why is a flawed argument still considered an argument? If there's little to no evidence and support, and the definition of an argument mandates that there must be a premise that supports a conclusion - then why would an unsupported argument be a true argument?
0
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.
82 comments
I am still confused on how the Tiger example is an argument since there was never a premise included that said a tiger is a mammal. It is also even more confusing because I know that we are not supposed to take into account our own knowledge, but it seems in this instance we are. Would be appreciative if anyone can help me understand this!
It all makes sense. Keep it up guys.
so basically when the premise doesn't give enough reason to fully believe the conclusion its a weak argument. sarah doesn't like meat, sarah doesn't like steak. weak argument because sarah might like steak even though she doesn't like other meats.
How is a weak argument unsupported when the whole framework is that a argument needs a premise that supports another claim?
I really feel like the spectrum is backwards. I think it would be a lot more effective it was weak--->strong its more intuitive left to right. Does anybody know why they made it the opposite way?
I believed the Tigers argument was strong until I realized it is missing one key premise.
It is missing a premise saying that aggressive animals don't make good pets.
After all, some people keep snakes and spiders as pets, despite them being aggressive and capable of causing serious harm to people.
a strong argument must be true a restatement or valid inference
a week argument is unsupported be true or could be false
they are not binary categories they are gradient
I like to also think about the likelihood that the premise(s) guarantee the conclusion.
Do we always assume the conclusion is correct/true?
My thinking is the premise that being a dangerous animal makes you unsuitable to be a pet
Pit bulls could be quite dangerous yet they are wonderful pets
Heck even Mike Tyson had a pet tiger no?
in my opinion the tiger argument is just as strong as the disney one, even though it has more claims backing it up because its premise makes it that it MUST be true that not all mammals are suitable as pets, dont really see any room for doubt or devils advocacy .. any thoughts as to why I'm wrong
What makes the tiger argument not as strong as the Disney argument
being pedantic, I would want to add one more premise to the disney argument in order to say that it must be true. we assume that the ONLY two ways to get genie + pass are the ones listed is the argument, but it is never stated within the argument that those are the only two ways to get a pass; for all we know, Walt could have stolen a pass or done some dark magic with Donald Duck. basically I would just want a premise stating that those are the only two ways to get a ass in order for me to believe that the argument must be true. “All other members” sort of implies it, but I would want stronger language to know he couldn’t steal it from someone
One thing that I just thought of for the Spectrum of Support lesson that I want to write down to see if it makes any sense is in some instances to think of the Spectrum of Support as percentages. For example, the conclusion of the Disney argument flows logically from the premises 100% of the time making it a strong or in this case valid argument. In contrast, if the premises only make the conclusion likely (say, 70-80% true) as in the case with the Tigers argument, the argument is still strong, just not entirely valid.
Might just be looking too far into it, but I don't understand why the tiger example is a strong argument. Obviously, the statement is true that tigers are mammals; however, there is no evidence given that the tiger is a mammal. If someone didn't know a tiger was a mammal, this argument would be incredibly weak. Is that just looking way too far into the argument?
In going back from a few lessons ago: Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time. Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras.
I still don't understand why this isn't an argument then if the spectrum of support allows inferences to be made. From my thought process, the details of "from various regions and eras" in the premise allow me to make an inference that human communication has existed universally, across different civilizations, and over time. While it may not be an airtight inference, the chosen words in the premise do seem to infer the conclusion's truth.
The strength of an argument derives from the probability that the premises increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true. On one side of the spectrum the premises give very strong support that the conclusion is true. Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum the premises gives very weak support that the conclusion is true. Most questions on the LSAT fall between these 2 extremities.
Ok, so I have a #question. I listed the arguments, from strongest to weakest, in Disney, Trash bin, and Tiger. Is trash bin and tiger switched because while we only have a hypothesis about the cat, we have actual evidence of tigers being aggressive and injuring others? Or is it something else?
While I understand the purpose that the Disney argument is supposed to serve in this example, I am struggling to accept the notion that it is a stronger argument than the tiger example.
Walt Disney could certainly bypass the Genie Pass standards/steps being that he is... Walt Disney. Because of this Walt loophole, the tiger example is more likely to be truth over the Disney example since I can't find a weak point in the support—Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. There is no counter to the logic of the tiger argument making it a "valid inference" as stated at the strongest point of the gradient.
It seems the tiger argument could be transformed from a strong inference to a valid one with the addition of more premises, but not necessarily new non-implied information e.g.:
1. Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
2. Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
3. No animal that is very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people is suitable to keep as a pet.
4. Tigers are mammals.
5. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
This adds new information to the argument, but does not fundamentally alter its form. Further, you could say the explicitly added premises were implicit before giving the inference its strength.
However, it seems the same could not be done for the cat argument. Even if the cat "always" licks its paws after eating, there is no way one could draw a line of logical necessity between the actions of the cat after eating with the act of knocking over the trashcan without the addition of significant, non-implied information that alters the argument significantly. Even if the cat always licks its paws after eating, and this is the only time it licks its paws, there is no way to validly infer that it was the salmon in the trashcan, not any other food that caused the paw-licking or that it was the cat that knocked over the trashcan.
Assuming a conclusion is not wholly unsupported, is this a good litmus test between strong and weak support?
What I am confused about is how the Tiger argument is weaker than the Disney argument. They seem equal to me: If tigers are a mammal, and an aggressive one, than yes, explicitly, not every mammal is suitable for being a pet. How is this argument any weaker than the Disney argument?
I learned that the spectrum of support is determined by one pivotal question "how much?"
How much does each premise support the conclusion. That is how to evaluate the strength of an argument. Disney argument is almost airtight as they present two possibilities and rule out one. Tiger argument is less effective because there are some assumptions made that make it less definitive. The trash bin argument is the least because it relies on suggestion/assumption and therefore has holes in the logic.
In this section, I learned that the spectrum of support can range between week to strong;
- The truthfulness of premises proceed the truthfulness of the conclusion.
- If premises are true, then conclusion is likely to be true. Strong Arguments are a restatement of valid inferences. Weak arguments are ones that are unsupported, hence are not valid.
- Truthfulness, or validity essentially all depends on the strength of the support of the premise.
All arguments fall in a section of hte part of the truthfulness and validity of arguments:
1. The Disney Argument is the strongest argument because of the strength of its premises, making it valid.
2. The Tiger Argument is a strong argument, that is most likely true, but can kind of change based on the premise + only one "real" premise is presented, so the strength of the argument is not as strong as the Disney Argument.
3. Fat Cat Argument is a weak argument because all of the premises are based on assumptions through observations, and not actual evidences, making the premises weak, resulting to a faulty conclusion, and is therefore, a weak argument overall.
Do the majority of LSAT arguments fall into most/somewhat likely true because those are the type of arguments lawyers deal with the most? Or do the LSAT writers do this to be as "tricky" as possible?
Why is a flawed argument still considered an argument? If there's little to no evidence and support, and the definition of an argument mandates that there must be a premise that supports a conclusion - then why would an unsupported argument be a true argument?