In comparing the Fat Cat argument v. the Dead Dolphins argument, I've found that revisiting the grammar lessons (identifying main noun, main verb, subject/predicate, etc.) and applying it here has helped me determine the strength of the support.
Ex) Fat Cat Argument
The trash bin is toppled.
Its contents, including salmon, are spilled.
Fat Cat is perched on the counter.
Fat Cat is licking his paw in the way he does after having eaten.
Therefore, Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within.
The conclusion (hypothesis) includes:
main noun/subject: Fat Cat
main verb/predicate: knocked over the trash
object: salmon within
Premise #1: includes main verb
Premise #2: includes object
Premise #3: main subject
Premise #4: object
Ex) Dead Dolphins Argument
In August of 2010, a pod of two dozen spinner dolphins washed up on Lanikai beach on Oahu.
All were dead or dying.
Toxic chemicals from a nearby mining operation were to blame.
The conclusion (hypothesis) addresses:
main subject: toxic chemicals (from a nearby mining operation)
main verb: were to blame
The way the conclusion is written depends on not only hypothesis, but also a lot of implications. (What is being "blamed"? How do toxic chemicals from a nearby mining operation get correlated to dead/dying dolphins? The chemicals were never explicitly stated to have spilled into the ocean? How does the proximity of a mining operation provide adequate support?
The form of a phenomenon-hypothesis argument is simply:
PREMISE = PHENOMENON
CONCLUSION = HYPOTHESIS
A occurred and caused (explicit or implicit) B.
Even if the premises are presented as phenomenon (facts or events) and the conclusion as a hypothesis (a potential explanation that might or might not be correct and has to compete with other potential explanations), Since this is INFORMAL LOGIC the focus shouldn't be on the structure/form of an argument since it cannot be valid/invalid, and instead should be on the support.
#feedback I've done some LSAT questions in the past, and some answer choices were: a. blank is a phenomenon and b. blank is a premise. Maybe I am getting ahead of myself here, but if a premise is considered a phenomenon, how would that work with distinguishing the two
Taking a pause to review b/c after going through this lesson my exhaustion kicked in and I couldn't remember the argument types as quickly as I should. All of the below content is from the lessons, btw. It just helps me to have the content in one place.
If I'm missing anything, or something could be explained in another way, please let me know!
General Argument - premise(s) + conclusion
Conditional Argument - If X then Y ( if one condition happens, then it guarantees the other condition happens...a relationship between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition). Conditional arguments are a type of formal logic - they are either valid or invalid...there is no in between. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true = valid argument
Casual Argument - Premises are presented as a phenomenon which cause (trigger) the conclusion which is presented as a hypothesis (the explanation of the phenomenon). Casual Arguments are informal meaning they cannot be valid...even if the premises are true it can never be said that the conclusion "must be true" at most the conclusion can be "very strong".
Okay, so, in the context of strengthening and weakening questions, am I to understand that the only way to evaluate them is by establishing or diminishing alternative explanations? This seems like it's the case, given that "For causal arguments specifically, using that framework requires evaluating other hypotheses to decide whether the proposed hypothesis is the true explanation."
I understand that a hypothesis is an explanation for phenomena, but in the 'explanation' lesson in this section the word explanation was used to describe the phenomena that caused the target phenomena. Firstly, is my understanding correct? Secondly, can explanation be both? Please explain! lol no pun intended
1
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.
20 comments
In comparing the Fat Cat argument v. the Dead Dolphins argument, I've found that revisiting the grammar lessons (identifying main noun, main verb, subject/predicate, etc.) and applying it here has helped me determine the strength of the support.
Ex) Fat Cat Argument
The trash bin is toppled.
Its contents, including salmon, are spilled.
Fat Cat is perched on the counter.
Fat Cat is licking his paw in the way he does after having eaten.
Therefore, Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within.
The conclusion (hypothesis) includes:
main noun/subject: Fat Cat
main verb/predicate: knocked over the trash
object: salmon within
Premise #1: includes main verb
Premise #2: includes object
Premise #3: main subject
Premise #4: object
Ex) Dead Dolphins Argument
In August of 2010, a pod of two dozen spinner dolphins washed up on Lanikai beach on Oahu.
All were dead or dying.
Toxic chemicals from a nearby mining operation were to blame.
The conclusion (hypothesis) addresses:
main subject: toxic chemicals (from a nearby mining operation)
main verb: were to blame
The way the conclusion is written depends on not only hypothesis, but also a lot of implications. (What is being "blamed"? How do toxic chemicals from a nearby mining operation get correlated to dead/dying dolphins? The chemicals were never explicitly stated to have spilled into the ocean? How does the proximity of a mining operation provide adequate support?
The form of a phenomenon-hypothesis argument is simply:
PREMISE = PHENOMENON
CONCLUSION = HYPOTHESIS
A occurred and caused (explicit or implicit) B.
Even if the premises are presented as phenomenon (facts or events) and the conclusion as a hypothesis (a potential explanation that might or might not be correct and has to compete with other potential explanations), Since this is INFORMAL LOGIC the focus shouldn't be on the structure/form of an argument since it cannot be valid/invalid, and instead should be on the support.
Hope this helps!
I don't get why he uses the word "true hypothesis" when I thought he said we can't get a true hypothesis with a causal argument?
So funny he mentioned Lanikai Beach on Oahu cause I was just there yesterday! Don't think I've ever seen dolphins on the Waimanalo coast.
Would be helpful have a drill set to reinforce this concept of Premise = Phenomena and Conclusion = Hypothesis
#feedback I've done some LSAT questions in the past, and some answer choices were: a. blank is a phenomenon and b. blank is a premise. Maybe I am getting ahead of myself here, but if a premise is considered a phenomenon, how would that work with distinguishing the two
This is the 7Sage's video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA--Mp0a6AA&pp=ygUaTFNBVCBQaGVub21lbm9uLUh5cG90aGVzaXM%3D
Taking a pause to review b/c after going through this lesson my exhaustion kicked in and I couldn't remember the argument types as quickly as I should. All of the below content is from the lessons, btw. It just helps me to have the content in one place.
If I'm missing anything, or something could be explained in another way, please let me know!
General Argument - premise(s) + conclusion
Conditional Argument - If X then Y ( if one condition happens, then it guarantees the other condition happens...a relationship between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition). Conditional arguments are a type of formal logic - they are either valid or invalid...there is no in between. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true = valid argument
Casual Argument - Premises are presented as a phenomenon which cause (trigger) the conclusion which is presented as a hypothesis (the explanation of the phenomenon). Casual Arguments are informal meaning they cannot be valid...even if the premises are true it can never be said that the conclusion "must be true" at most the conclusion can be "very strong".
Is this simply inductive argumentation? Essentially, arguing past your premises, whereas deductive argumentation is arguing within your premises?
Okay, so, in the context of strengthening and weakening questions, am I to understand that the only way to evaluate them is by establishing or diminishing alternative explanations? This seems like it's the case, given that "For causal arguments specifically, using that framework requires evaluating other hypotheses to decide whether the proposed hypothesis is the true explanation."
General Argument: Premises - Conclusion
Causal Argument: Phenomenon - Hypothesis
I am curious as to how can we distinguish the different arguments and how is the causal argument built to make the alternation.
I understand that a hypothesis is an explanation for phenomena, but in the 'explanation' lesson in this section the word explanation was used to describe the phenomena that caused the target phenomena. Firstly, is my understanding correct? Secondly, can explanation be both? Please explain! lol no pun intended