A good exercise to do during your LSAT journey is to continually question arguments that you make in your own head or out loud.
For example: Let's get deep here, as humans, we all have the inclination to pass judgements on to others. This actually allows us to determine our values and actions. What I have been trying to incorporate lately is that when I judge someone in a negative light I try to see if there are things that I could add to my judgement that would put that person in a better light. Then, I know that my judgement and reasoning is weak, and it serves a self-check for myself. I came to the conclusion if I can have the ability to asses my own arguments which are naturally biased, then assessing and attacking an argument on the LSAT will become much easier.
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.
@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.
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
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.
I also think asking "how strong" the premise is that leads to the conclusion. there can be a lot of support but if it doesn't relate to the conclusion its a weak argument
I feel like The Tiger argument is also strong. If the premise is true, then it is definitely true that not all mammals are suitable to be kept as pets, because at least tigers are not.
I took the LSAT once already, and this is the issue that I run into most consistently. While anyone would agree this is "very strong" support in real life, it is only "strong" here because they did not explicitly mention the conditions for what a suitable pet would be. Real world knowledge makes us see support that is not there and therefore not relevant on the test.
Ya it seems like that. But it's not an entirely valid argument. There are many mammals that can cause serious injury to their owners yet we still consider them suitable as pets, such as the pitbull. This only strengthens the conclusion, but in no way guarantees it.
The tiger argument is weaker because it leaves space for an inference. You have to infer that an animal causing serious injury to humans makes them not suitable as a pet.
With the Disney argument, there is no space for an inference. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. There is no space for assumptions. Therefore, it is stronger. If you break both arguments down into their most basic logic format this becomes even more clear.
While the argument is strong, I feel like the conclusion is NECESSARYILY true even if the premises are true. For instance, what if the tiger is domesticated? People keep tigers as exotic pets. Sure it's more likely that it's dangerous and shouldn't be a pet, but there is a possibility it isn't, and I think that's why the tiger argument is in the middle.
I'm not sure that it's defined that, just because a mammal may be capable of causing harm, they are categorically not suitable to be kept as pets, A German Shepard could kill a person, but most would consider them suitable as pets.
In the mammal argument, I think there might be another potential argument that weakens itself, which is, is the dangerousness of the mammal lowers its suitability to be kept as a pet. For the Disney one, it's one we or another because in the premise it only gives out two possible reasons and denies one.
I think it's fundamentally something related to how fleshed out the argument is. That is to say, if an argument is more fleshed out it relies on less assumptions (what I would consider unstated and implicit premises that are presumed true without being stated). The Disney example requires less assumptions by the reader to reach the conclusion. Contrarily, the Tiger argument relies on more assumptions (albeit very reasonable, nearly indisputable ones) to reach the conclusion. Seeing the next video in the syllabus seems to confirm this to me.
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).
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.
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.
Basically, the more you have to "assume" the weaker the argument is? e.g. the Disney example doesn't leave any room for guesswork, there is a clear set of instructions to follow which lead you to a result, but the Fat Cat example forces you to make an assumption that Mr Fat Cat ate something based on suggestive evidence?
@rodoshi2001 I think its because an argument includes premises (even if they dont support the conclusion) and the conclusion itself. It is just a structure that makes it an argument.
Premise + conclusion = argument (even if it is a weak argument),
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think this instruction is sensible and easy to follow. Some arguments have more support than others. This concept helps with questions pertaining to what can most weaken or strengthen an 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.
101 comments
A good exercise to do during your LSAT journey is to continually question arguments that you make in your own head or out loud.
For example: Let's get deep here, as humans, we all have the inclination to pass judgements on to others. This actually allows us to determine our values and actions. What I have been trying to incorporate lately is that when I judge someone in a negative light I try to see if there are things that I could add to my judgement that would put that person in a better light. Then, I know that my judgement and reasoning is weak, and it serves a self-check for myself. I came to the conclusion if I can have the ability to asses my own arguments which are naturally biased, then assessing and attacking an argument on the LSAT will become much easier.
Loving all your comments!!
But how does this relate to answering questions on the LSAT? Are you implying that we shouldn’t judge the premises negatively?
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
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?
soooo...making my own predictions of the conclusion drawn from given premises will help me!
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.
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
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.
I also think asking "how strong" the premise is that leads to the conclusion. there can be a lot of support but if it doesn't relate to the conclusion its a weak argument
I feel like The Tiger argument is also strong. If the premise is true, then it is definitely true that not all mammals are suitable to be kept as pets, because at least tigers are not.
I took the LSAT once already, and this is the issue that I run into most consistently. While anyone would agree this is "very strong" support in real life, it is only "strong" here because they did not explicitly mention the conditions for what a suitable pet would be. Real world knowledge makes us see support that is not there and therefore not relevant on the test.
Ya it seems like that. But it's not an entirely valid argument. There are many mammals that can cause serious injury to their owners yet we still consider them suitable as pets, such as the pitbull. This only strengthens the conclusion, but in no way guarantees it.
The tiger argument is weaker because it leaves space for an inference. You have to infer that an animal causing serious injury to humans makes them not suitable as a pet.
With the Disney argument, there is no space for an inference. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. There is no space for assumptions. Therefore, it is stronger. If you break both arguments down into their most basic logic format this becomes even more clear.
While the argument is strong, I feel like the conclusion is NECESSARYILY true even if the premises are true. For instance, what if the tiger is domesticated? People keep tigers as exotic pets. Sure it's more likely that it's dangerous and shouldn't be a pet, but there is a possibility it isn't, and I think that's why the tiger argument is in the middle.
I'm not sure that it's defined that, just because a mammal may be capable of causing harm, they are categorically not suitable to be kept as pets, A German Shepard could kill a person, but most would consider them suitable as pets.
In the mammal argument, I think there might be another potential argument that weakens itself, which is, is the dangerousness of the mammal lowers its suitability to be kept as a pet. For the Disney one, it's one we or another because in the premise it only gives out two possible reasons and denies one.
Completely agree. I couldn't get off of that.
I think it's fundamentally something related to how fleshed out the argument is. That is to say, if an argument is more fleshed out it relies on less assumptions (what I would consider unstated and implicit premises that are presumed true without being stated). The Disney example requires less assumptions by the reader to reach the conclusion. Contrarily, the Tiger argument relies on more assumptions (albeit very reasonable, nearly indisputable ones) to reach the conclusion. Seeing the next video in the syllabus seems to confirm this to me.
I think the flaw of the tiger argument is due to the assumptions the reader has to draw for the conclusion to follow logically.
This was very helpful, thank you.
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).
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.
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.
Basically, the more you have to "assume" the weaker the argument is? e.g. the Disney example doesn't leave any room for guesswork, there is a clear set of instructions to follow which lead you to a result, but the Fat Cat example forces you to make an assumption that Mr Fat Cat ate something based on suggestive evidence?
What's the difference between a 2 fact statement vs a weak argument (aka unsupported)? If it is unsupported, how is it an argument?
@rodoshi2001 I think its because an argument includes premises (even if they dont support the conclusion) and the conclusion itself. It is just a structure that makes it an argument.
Premise + conclusion = argument (even if it is a weak argument),
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.
@HeyItsWalter this was very well said, thank you.
this really helped me understand flawed arguments better
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think this instruction is sensible and easy to follow. Some arguments have more support than others. This concept helps with questions pertaining to what can most weaken or strengthen an 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 like to also think about the likelihood that the premise(s) guarantee the conclusion.