why is the trash one not just completely unsupported? the conclusion assumes the intentionality of knocking the trash over which has nothing to do w the rest of passage?
@SophiaPatton154 Since he is on the counter licking his paws and it is true that he always does this after eating, it suggests that he COULD have knocked over the trash bin to eat the fish inside. That is support, just very weak support.
@SophiaPatton154 whether or not the cat knocked over the trash can is what was being questioned, the assumption of intentionality is used as support for that argument. support for the claim that the cat knocked over the bin existed, it was just very weak, not non existent. try to remember that the support doesn't have to be good to exist, it just has to be there.
how can a "flawed argument" even be considered an argument at all. An argument requires a premise that supports the conclusion, and if the premise does not validly support a conclusion, how could it be considered a flawed argument rather than just not an argument at all?
@NaomiMcNew That's an excellent question. We're taking two different perspectives:
Through an objective perspective, is there support? If yes, argument. If no, no argument.
Through the author's subjective perspective, is support intended? If yes, then we call it an argument (and if there's no real support, a flawed argument).
Before I thought that misrepresentation would be weaker than the inference. But I suppose the assumption of action (spilling the trash) is a bit too much considering the evidence (licking paw in a way as if eaten).
Tiger is at least a mammal, so although not representative of the conclusion, it has that level of common sense that doesn't reach like the Trash issue.
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!
@Laulno I think this goes back to the assumptions piece.
From this perspective, we say that the stronger an argument is, the fewer and more reasonable its assumptions are. The corollary is that the weaker an argument is, the more and less reasonable its assumptions are.
With that in mind, let's revisit the Tigers argument.
Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.
I want to ask you whether this argument has made any assumptions, but I first should tell you what an assumption is.
It's the missing link between the premise and the conclusion. It's a claim whose truth we take for granted so that the argument "runs through." It's something unstated but if it were stated, would help the premise better support the conclusion. So assumptions have the potential to help arguments become stronger. But for the same reasons, they also are the weak point of every argument, the point where it is most vulnerable to criticism.
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?
@AdeleneJeneid A conclusion is only guaranteed to be true if the argument supporting it is both valid and based on true premises. Since arguments and their premises can be false, a conclusion is not automatically true just because it exists.
@AnthonyAddario That sounds right. I think you'd have to add a few extra steps to make the conclusion work. "Tigers are kind of mammal which are more likely to attack and maim humans than not. Any animal that is more likely to attack a human than not would not be a suitable pet. Therefore, not all mammals are suitable to keep as pets." No wiggle room.
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
@BenYusupov one idea is that it is not certain that a tiger is a mammal. the conditions in the disney are certain, making the conclusion undeniable. the reader must assume that tigers are mammals for the premise to support the conclusion.
@BenYusupov I would say the word "can" in the tiger argument is what makes it not a valid inference. Even though it is highly highly likely a tiger would make a terrible pet, it is not impossible.
@JeremyK I believe it's weakened by the assumption that being very aggressive and having the ability to cause serious injuries to people constitutes being unsuitable to be kept as a pet. We don't know what makes a pet unsuitable in this argument unless we apply our own assumptions to unsuitability.
@QuintonWThiessen This is great take. I think many of us, including myself, assumed by "pet" it must be able to be kept and treated in the same way as other traditional pets.
I have owned "pet" tarantulas. Never handled them as doing so would open the opportunity for bodily harm. However, what made them great pets imo were there ease of care, low cost, and interesting behavior to observe.
The Tiger argument suggests that likelihood of bodily harm is the only metric to measure if an animal is a good pet or not. It is not a weak argument, just not as black and white as the Disney argument.
@Jakobmisey no what makes the Disney argument strong has nothing to do with the amount of premises, or not even really the strength necessarily. What makes the Disney argument strong is that the truth of the premises necessitate the conclusion. The conclusion can not be false, based on what the premises are.
The premises for the tiger argument offer strong probability that the conclusion is true, but it’s not certain. A tiger can be a pet, it’s possible despite their aggressiveness.
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
@artimus13 I thought this at first, but now I think I disagree.
The prostration is not actually posited as an alternative prerequisite for getting a pass. It's just posited as a requirement if you do not get the pass on your app via goat offerings.
So, all we know is that members can get the pass, and that they can get it on their app through the goats.
However, we know that members who do not get it on their app with the goats must prostrate before the altar.
Because Walt has the pass, and because has never prostrated, he must have gotten the pass on his app by offering the goats.
The only alternative is that he is not an obedient member of the Disney Vacation Club, but I believe we are being taught to assume this is a universe where all the premises are true.
So, if this is a universe where all members are going to either 1) get the pass on their app or 2) prostrate, then I think the premises provide are sufficient to making the argument strong via valid inference.
@baby-lawyer this is exactly where I was struggling with and still kind of am I think, maybe it is an issue of taking the premises as true that I'm having, but I think I see that if we take the premise as true then the alternative window kind of disappears since its irrelevant for Walt? If Walt weren't a member then maybe there is an unknown hypothetical alternate route simply not mentioned? But of course that depends on that being true which we know is not since its explicit that he is a member and the rules of the premise then must apply to him
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?
I think because that argument concludes that "not every mammal can be a pet" and then proceeds to explain how there is one exception that completely negates the use of every, it is strong.
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.
I think it's fair to infer that if comparative linguistic analyses span various regions and eras, then it's likely—or at least plausible—that communication has existed broadly across time and civilizations. However, perhaps the mode of analysis also makes a difference? If you think about it, comparative analysis is often used in descriptive or explanatory contexts to highlight similarities, differences, patterns, and trends—not to persuade someone that a claim is true. That’s why its purpose matters: if it is used to justify the truth of a claim, it can be part of an argument; if it is used to explore or illustrate something already assumed, it is not. In this case, then could we not maintain comparative analysis serves an explanatory, not argumentative, function?
So in other words, it's not held as an argument because the purpose of the statements combined is to explain, not persuade? If the statements had been connected with "because" or "since" (or whatever other sort of similar bridge), then it would then become an argument where we could make an inference?
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?
The premises of the cat argument are that the cat is looking self-satisfied while licking its paws as it does after a meal. These are (subjective) inferences made based on the cat's behavior. The argument relies on these inferences/assumptions to conclude that it must have been the cat that ate the trash. A strong argument shouldn't rely on assumptions. An argument based on assumptions immediately opens itself to criticism on the grounds that the conclusion relies on assumptions (which is a pretty common answer choice for flaw identification questions in LR).
If, for example, the premises were something like "there was no one else home other than the cat and the cat has a history of going through trash and the cat smelled like salmon and its paws were covered in salmon," that would actually lend support to the conclusion that the cat ate the leftover dinner.
Of course, as other people commented, the tiger argument also relies on assumptions to work. But, the premise of the tiger argument is not itself an assumption. As you said, we have evidence that tigers are aggressive—this does not require any assuming on our end. As for the trash argument, the premises themselves are assumptions.
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.
I think you're going far beyond in making that assumption for Walt. In the stimulus he is referred to as "Walt" NOT "Walt Disney" so I'm sure the LSAT writers were referring to a normal Walt who is a member of the Disney Vacation Club. Which I mean is clarified by the sentence "Walt is a Disney Vacation member". Also, we are told if you are a member there are ONLY two ways of accessing the Genie+ pass, and since he has not prostrated himself HE MUST have must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.- because there is simply no other way of accessing the pass if you do not do one of the two things.
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 think it weaker because of the use of “can,” like not all tigers will cause serious injury to people, but they can. theoretically, you could also disagree with the conclusion. the Disney argument is stronger because Walt met one of the sufficient conditions for acquiring a Disney Plus pass. but thats just my view on it, not sure if I’m doing the explanation justice.
I was confused about this too, but after thinking about it for a minute, I believe that it is weaker because there simply just isn't enough evidence for it to be 100% definitive. The Disney argument provides all the "steps" leading up to why that conclusion can be seen as definitive, whereas the tiger argument just has a singular premise. You kinda have to take that premise at face value and really pay attention to specific words like the word "can" compared to words like "will" or "is". Hopefully that makes sense.
Also, the premise does not say that tigers are mammals, that is an assumption (although factually true) that you have to make. The tiger argument could be strengthened by adding the following two premises, which you otherwise have to assume:
1. Tigers are mammals.
2. An animal that is dangerous is unsuitable to be a pet.
You don't have to make any assumptions with the Disney example, which is why it is a stronger argument.
in the premises for the Disney argument, it states that to get a pass, you must do 1 of 2 things: give Mickey a provision or prostrate yourself to Goofy. Those are the only ways you're able to get a pass. Walt has a pass, but has never prostrated himself to anyone. If we follow the premises and assume them to be true, then the only way for Walt to get a pass is to give to Mickey. If the provisions are true, then the conclusion must also be true, full stop.
The tiger example is very strongly supported, but not to the extent of the Disney one. "Not all mammals are suitable to be kept as pets. After all, tigers can injure people" (or something of the like, i'm too lazy to go back and find the direct quote, lol). Maybe someone thinks that's a suitable trait for a pet, who knows? The premises don't require the conclusion to be true, unlike the Disney example.
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.
92 comments
why is the trash one not just completely unsupported? the conclusion assumes the intentionality of knocking the trash over which has nothing to do w the rest of passage?
@SophiaPatton154 Since he is on the counter licking his paws and it is true that he always does this after eating, it suggests that he COULD have knocked over the trash bin to eat the fish inside. That is support, just very weak support.
@HeyItsWalter the action of licking paws after knocking food over would still not prove the intent. the intent is what is being questioned, no?
@SophiaPatton154 whether or not the cat knocked over the trash can is what was being questioned, the assumption of intentionality is used as support for that argument. support for the claim that the cat knocked over the bin existed, it was just very weak, not non existent. try to remember that the support doesn't have to be good to exist, it just has to be there.
this really helped me understand flawed arguments better
how can a "flawed argument" even be considered an argument at all. An argument requires a premise that supports the conclusion, and if the premise does not validly support a conclusion, how could it be considered a flawed argument rather than just not an argument at all?
@NaomiMcNew That's an excellent question. We're taking two different perspectives:
Through an objective perspective, is there support? If yes, argument. If no, no argument.
Through the author's subjective perspective, is support intended? If yes, then we call it an argument (and if there's no real support, a flawed argument).
Before I thought that misrepresentation would be weaker than the inference. But I suppose the assumption of action (spilling the trash) is a bit too much considering the evidence (licking paw in a way as if eaten).
Tiger is at least a mammal, so although not representative of the conclusion, it has that level of common sense that doesn't reach like the Trash issue.
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!
@Laulno I think this goes back to the assumptions piece.
From this perspective, we say that the stronger an argument is, the fewer and more reasonable its assumptions are. The corollary is that the weaker an argument is, the more and less reasonable its assumptions are.
With that in mind, let's revisit the Tigers argument.
I want to ask you whether this argument has made any assumptions, but I first should tell you what an assumption is.
It's the missing link between the premise and the conclusion. It's a claim whose truth we take for granted so that the argument "runs through." It's something unstated but if it were stated, would help the premise better support the conclusion. So assumptions have the potential to help arguments become stronger. But for the same reasons, they also are the weak point of every argument, the point where it is most vulnerable to criticism.
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.
@EvanP7s Ahhh there you go, that’s exactly the piece I was missing. Thanks for pointing that out!
@EvanP7s i disagree. The conclusion is that not every mammal is a good pet.
All we need to do to prove that is find a single mammel that is not a good pet. Tiger
Now if it said most mammals, then it would be a different discussion
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?
@AdeleneJeneid A conclusion is only guaranteed to be true if the argument supporting it is both valid and based on true premises. Since arguments and their premises can be false, a conclusion is not automatically true just because it exists.
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?
@AnthonyAddario That sounds right. I think you'd have to add a few extra steps to make the conclusion work. "Tigers are kind of mammal which are more likely to attack and maim humans than not. Any animal that is more likely to attack a human than not would not be a suitable pet. Therefore, not all mammals are suitable to keep as pets." No wiggle room.
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
@BenYusupov one idea is that it is not certain that a tiger is a mammal. the conditions in the disney are certain, making the conclusion undeniable. the reader must assume that tigers are mammals for the premise to support the conclusion.
@BenYusupov I would say the word "can" in the tiger argument is what makes it not a valid inference. Even though it is highly highly likely a tiger would make a terrible pet, it is not impossible.
What makes the tiger argument not as strong as the Disney argument
@JeremyK My thought is that in the disney argument, we have more premises that are as equally strong.
@JeremyK I believe it's weakened by the assumption that being very aggressive and having the ability to cause serious injuries to people constitutes being unsuitable to be kept as a pet. We don't know what makes a pet unsuitable in this argument unless we apply our own assumptions to unsuitability.
@QuintonWThiessen This is great take. I think many of us, including myself, assumed by "pet" it must be able to be kept and treated in the same way as other traditional pets.
I have owned "pet" tarantulas. Never handled them as doing so would open the opportunity for bodily harm. However, what made them great pets imo were there ease of care, low cost, and interesting behavior to observe.
The Tiger argument suggests that likelihood of bodily harm is the only metric to measure if an animal is a good pet or not. It is not a weak argument, just not as black and white as the Disney argument.
@Jakobmisey no what makes the Disney argument strong has nothing to do with the amount of premises, or not even really the strength necessarily. What makes the Disney argument strong is that the truth of the premises necessitate the conclusion. The conclusion can not be false, based on what the premises are.
The premises for the tiger argument offer strong probability that the conclusion is true, but it’s not certain. A tiger can be a pet, it’s possible despite their aggressiveness.
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
@artimus13 I thought this at first, but now I think I disagree.
The prostration is not actually posited as an alternative prerequisite for getting a pass. It's just posited as a requirement if you do not get the pass on your app via goat offerings.
So, all we know is that members can get the pass, and that they can get it on their app through the goats.
However, we know that members who do not get it on their app with the goats must prostrate before the altar.
Because Walt has the pass, and because has never prostrated, he must have gotten the pass on his app by offering the goats.
The only alternative is that he is not an obedient member of the Disney Vacation Club, but I believe we are being taught to assume this is a universe where all the premises are true.
So, if this is a universe where all members are going to either 1) get the pass on their app or 2) prostrate, then I think the premises provide are sufficient to making the argument strong via valid inference.
@baby-lawyer this is exactly where I was struggling with and still kind of am I think, maybe it is an issue of taking the premises as true that I'm having, but I think I see that if we take the premise as true then the alternative window kind of disappears since its irrelevant for Walt? If Walt weren't a member then maybe there is an unknown hypothetical alternate route simply not mentioned? But of course that depends on that being true which we know is not since its explicit that he is a member and the rules of the premise then must apply to him
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?
I think because that argument concludes that "not every mammal can be a pet" and then proceeds to explain how there is one exception that completely negates the use of every, it is strong.
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.
I think it's fair to infer that if comparative linguistic analyses span various regions and eras, then it's likely—or at least plausible—that communication has existed broadly across time and civilizations. However, perhaps the mode of analysis also makes a difference? If you think about it, comparative analysis is often used in descriptive or explanatory contexts to highlight similarities, differences, patterns, and trends—not to persuade someone that a claim is true. That’s why its purpose matters: if it is used to justify the truth of a claim, it can be part of an argument; if it is used to explore or illustrate something already assumed, it is not. In this case, then could we not maintain comparative analysis serves an explanatory, not argumentative, function?
So in other words, it's not held as an argument because the purpose of the statements combined is to explain, not persuade? If the statements had been connected with "because" or "since" (or whatever other sort of similar bridge), then it would then become an argument where we could make an inference?
Yes, I think so!
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?
The premises of the cat argument are that the cat is looking self-satisfied while licking its paws as it does after a meal. These are (subjective) inferences made based on the cat's behavior. The argument relies on these inferences/assumptions to conclude that it must have been the cat that ate the trash. A strong argument shouldn't rely on assumptions. An argument based on assumptions immediately opens itself to criticism on the grounds that the conclusion relies on assumptions (which is a pretty common answer choice for flaw identification questions in LR).
If, for example, the premises were something like "there was no one else home other than the cat and the cat has a history of going through trash and the cat smelled like salmon and its paws were covered in salmon," that would actually lend support to the conclusion that the cat ate the leftover dinner.
Of course, as other people commented, the tiger argument also relies on assumptions to work. But, the premise of the tiger argument is not itself an assumption. As you said, we have evidence that tigers are aggressive—this does not require any assuming on our end. As for the trash argument, the premises themselves are assumptions.
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.
I think you're going far beyond in making that assumption for Walt. In the stimulus he is referred to as "Walt" NOT "Walt Disney" so I'm sure the LSAT writers were referring to a normal Walt who is a member of the Disney Vacation Club. Which I mean is clarified by the sentence "Walt is a Disney Vacation member". Also, we are told if you are a member there are ONLY two ways of accessing the Genie+ pass, and since he has not prostrated himself HE MUST have must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.- because there is simply no other way of accessing the pass if you do not do one of the two things.
LOL! Leave it to me. Thank you :)
How can you definitively set the Disney argument as stronger than the tiger example on the gradient because of this?
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 think it weaker because of the use of “can,” like not all tigers will cause serious injury to people, but they can. theoretically, you could also disagree with the conclusion. the Disney argument is stronger because Walt met one of the sufficient conditions for acquiring a Disney Plus pass. but thats just my view on it, not sure if I’m doing the explanation justice.
I was confused about this too, but after thinking about it for a minute, I believe that it is weaker because there simply just isn't enough evidence for it to be 100% definitive. The Disney argument provides all the "steps" leading up to why that conclusion can be seen as definitive, whereas the tiger argument just has a singular premise. You kinda have to take that premise at face value and really pay attention to specific words like the word "can" compared to words like "will" or "is". Hopefully that makes sense.
Also, the premise does not say that tigers are mammals, that is an assumption (although factually true) that you have to make. The tiger argument could be strengthened by adding the following two premises, which you otherwise have to assume:
1. Tigers are mammals.
2. An animal that is dangerous is unsuitable to be a pet.
You don't have to make any assumptions with the Disney example, which is why it is a stronger argument.
in the premises for the Disney argument, it states that to get a pass, you must do 1 of 2 things: give Mickey a provision or prostrate yourself to Goofy. Those are the only ways you're able to get a pass. Walt has a pass, but has never prostrated himself to anyone. If we follow the premises and assume them to be true, then the only way for Walt to get a pass is to give to Mickey. If the provisions are true, then the conclusion must also be true, full stop.
The tiger example is very strongly supported, but not to the extent of the Disney one. "Not all mammals are suitable to be kept as pets. After all, tigers can injure people" (or something of the like, i'm too lazy to go back and find the direct quote, lol). Maybe someone thinks that's a suitable trait for a pet, who knows? The premises don't require the conclusion to be true, unlike the Disney example.