"All Mr. Fat Cat did was eat trash salmon already on the kitchen floor. And that's something we can all relate to." I live for these little humor gems.
When we say identify an alt. hypo, is this us creating it in our head? Or reading between the lines of the question and finding an alt. hypo. That's implied by the question?
I wonder the same thing because if we are creating it in our heads, so many different variations of hypothesis would be created. I'm assuming that we are to read between the lines and determine hypothesis through that.
The last two video lessons, this one and the one before it are in a different format then the previous five lessons or so.... visually this format is way harder to follow than the previous format that didn't rely on handwritten words on the screen. I'm going to have to watch a few more times
"Answer choices will often declare those hypotheses to be either true or false." Can we see an example of this? I'm confused on how we will know if an alternate hypothesis is true or not.
If I recall correctly, I believe the q-stem will say something along the lines of if the following is true then-basically telling you to take the answer choices as true
Would benefit from more in-depth/concise information on...
Target Phenomena
Definition: Is it the first phenomena? Or the main phenomena? (Implicit v. Explicit)
Tactics/Strategies:
If it is implicit, how do we correctly identify the Target Phenomena in arguments/stimuli, especially when considering the convoluted language of stim on the test?
I personally refer back to the Grammar lessons and the "kernel" aka subject (main noun) + predicate (main verb) + object (if applicable) but I want to make sure.
I also referred back to the original hypothesis (e.g. "Therefore, Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within.") But I feel that it is likely that the arguments on the test will have more modifiers in the sentences and more cluster sentences in the argument as a whole, making it less likely that the Target Phenomena will be this clear.
Previous lessons point out the Target Phenomena with certainty but not explanation. (What it is/How to identify it) From the student POV, I see correctly identifying and understanding Target Phenomena as the first step in understanding what we're trying to explain at all.
For the Alternative-Hypothesis:
Explanation:
What should we consider when coming up with our own alternative hypothesis? If we are assuming it is true, then should we conjure an alternative-hypothesis that makes the Target Phenomena true?
Does the placement of the alternative-hypothesis in the original argument matter? In both examples, the alternative-hypothesis replaced phenomena, not hypothesis. Coming up with an alternative hypothesis to the target phenomena is very different from adding an additional phenomena claim to the overall argument, especially in terms of assessing the relationship of support.
Application:
I understand that providing an alternative, true explanation to the initial Target Phenomena calls into question the strength of the original hypothesis - but I'm uncertain of how to apply the of truth in the alternative-hypothesis v. the strength of support/explanation in the original hypothesis to come to a concrete answer of what the level of support in the original argument actually is, especially if it exists on a spectrum?
Tying this back to the Target Phenomena and the alternative-hypothesis v. original hypothesis...
ORIGINAL MR 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.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS ARGUMENT
The trash bin is toppled. [The kids knocked over the trash.]
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.
The kids knocked over the Trash.
Both arguments provide information on Fat Cat, Trash, and Kids that inevitably makes it clear that they all exist in relation to the trash being toppled, but it's not clear to me that we are looking to explain the target phenomenon of WHO knocked over the trash or if Mr. Fat Cat is guilty (original argument focuses on Mr. Fat Cat knocking over the trash and eating the salmon within - which makes it clear we're looking for WHO toppled the bin, and if we're adding the alternative-hypothesis to the premise claim (1) The Trash is toppled. and then (2) The kids knocked over the trash, but claims 3-4 provide supporting evidence to explain that Mr. Fat Cat is potentially guilty of being involved with the toppled trash, I am unsure if what we're looking to explain for the target phenomena of [toppled trash] is a question of WHO is guilty or IF Mr. Fat Cat is guilty. I also feel like, "The kids knocked over the trash bin." is true but it doesn't really follow the explanatory framework of a hypothesis?
So I'm even more confused about how to apply this alternative-hypothesis tactic to pursue truth + examine the strength of the support for the explanation (since I'm not super clear on the bounds of what we're looking to explain to begin with are)
Examples:
Echoing the sentiments below that a real LSAT example of causal logic with a stim/question stem/answer choices would be super helpful for this lesson! I understand the gist of this concept, but not quite sure how to apply this tactic to answering a question correctly or how to apply this thinking to a question stem.
@Brie97 Basically, causal reasoning questions usually have a stimulus that asks for an option that would either weaken or strengthen the argument that is provided to us.
Strengthening the argument would mean that we REJECT an alternative hypothesis, as that would further affirm that the hypothesis (aka conclusion) in our given argument is the true one and not anything else.
Weakening the argument would mean accepting that an alternative hypothesis could be true, which may conflict with the conclusion/hypothesis initially given to us by the argument.
TL;DR:
Overall, an alternative hypothesis (explanation for the phenomenon):
on the exam, we will be ask to weaken (or find true explanation for) the argument. All answer choices could be potential alternative hypothesis. The correct alternative hypothesis (answer choice) will be the one that, when it's true, explains the original phenomenon (and potentially strengthen the causal relationship? idk about this part). And it will weaken the original argument since the original conclusion (hypothesis) is no longer supported by the premises (phenomena).
If you are given a weaken question and the stimulus is a causal argument the question stem will state the answer choices are true. So you are taking each answer choice to be true. It does not necessarily mean that every answer choice will be an alternative hypothesis. Some answer choices will be irrelevant or not even do anything to the argument. But if one of the answer choices is an alternative hypothesis and we are taking it to be true (because the question stem said all the answer choices are true) then it would weaken the argument because whatever hypothesis the stimulus gave is no longer supported since we have the true explanation in the answer choices. You were definitely on the right track! If you look at a weakening question example it make things more clear. I hope this made sense!
I am confused. The point of an alternative hypothesis is to test the strength of the argument? If so, do we come up with these alternative hypothesis ourselves after reading the argument? or are the alternative hypothesis going to be the ones present as answer choices?
As another commenter said, being able to predict your own answer before looking at the answer choices is the best way to improve speed and be able to rule out possible wrong answers. But for causal arguments on the test, the alternative hypothesis will be given in the answer choices and the question stem will identify whether or not we take them as true or false.
48 comments
Finally justice for Mr. Fat Cat!! It only took hours worth of content, but he finally isn't the scapegoat <3
This section REALLY needs examples.
@K8eEssDoc Examples and questions. They're just throwing information at me.
@ratman23 lol
Here's how I see it and maybe a bit easier to understand
Fat Cat vs kids example
Suppose the trash bin was knocked over. The original explanation is: Fat Cat did it.
Now, we introduce an alternative hypothesis: The kids knocked over the bin.
If we take this alternative hypothesis as true, we don’t need the Fat Cat explanation anymore. We know why the trash fell over—it was the kids.
Result: The original argument (blaming Fat Cat) is weakened.
True alternative hypothesis: Weakens the original argument.
False alternative hypothesis: Strengthens the original argument by ruling out other possibilities.
Don't tell me you've never done that LOLLLLLLLL
@jjjjffff Dont underestimate trash salmon.
#feedback
More examples for this lesson or a quick skill builder would be helpful.
It would be helpful to have an actual example from the LSAT
I knew the claims against Mr. Fat Cat were a witch hunt! #JusticeforFatCat
"All Mr. Fat Cat did was eat trash salmon already on the kitchen floor. And that's something we can all relate to." I live for these little humor gems.
I laughed out loud when I was reading this!
Same hahahah
1. Weaken questions
Ask: Is there another reason this could have happened?
If an answer introduces a different cause, it weakens.
You’ve shown the author may be wrong about why it happened.
2. Strengthen questions
Ask: Does this rule out another reason?
If an answer eliminates a plausible competing cause, it strengthens.
The original explanation now has less competition.
I was soo lost; I had to reread this twice to understand. An example in this section would indeed be helpful, please.
"All Mr. Fat Cat did was eat trash salmon already on the kitchen floor. And that's something we can all relate to."
Mmmmm eating trash salmon off the kitchen floor so tasty
so true Fat Cat
Trash Salmon was the name of my rock band
When we say identify an alt. hypo, is this us creating it in our head? Or reading between the lines of the question and finding an alt. hypo. That's implied by the question?
I wonder the same thing because if we are creating it in our heads, so many different variations of hypothesis would be created. I'm assuming that we are to read between the lines and determine hypothesis through that.
The last two video lessons, this one and the one before it are in a different format then the previous five lessons or so.... visually this format is way harder to follow than the previous format that didn't rely on handwritten words on the screen. I'm going to have to watch a few more times
Hypothesis or in other words, the conclusion, right?
Correct
"Answer choices will often declare those hypotheses to be either true or false." Can we see an example of this? I'm confused on how we will know if an alternate hypothesis is true or not.
#help
If I recall correctly, I believe the q-stem will say something along the lines of if the following is true then-basically telling you to take the answer choices as true
This video talks about alternative hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZfmzq69iM
Can someone explain this better. I’m still confused…
#Feedback for 7Sage
Would benefit from more in-depth/concise information on...
Target Phenomena
Definition: Is it the first phenomena? Or the main phenomena? (Implicit v. Explicit)
Tactics/Strategies:
If it is implicit, how do we correctly identify the Target Phenomena in arguments/stimuli, especially when considering the convoluted language of stim on the test?
I personally refer back to the Grammar lessons and the "kernel" aka subject (main noun) + predicate (main verb) + object (if applicable) but I want to make sure.
I also referred back to the original hypothesis (e.g. "Therefore, Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within.") But I feel that it is likely that the arguments on the test will have more modifiers in the sentences and more cluster sentences in the argument as a whole, making it less likely that the Target Phenomena will be this clear.
Previous lessons point out the Target Phenomena with certainty but not explanation. (What it is/How to identify it) From the student POV, I see correctly identifying and understanding Target Phenomena as the first step in understanding what we're trying to explain at all.
For the Alternative-Hypothesis:
Explanation:
What should we consider when coming up with our own alternative hypothesis? If we are assuming it is true, then should we conjure an alternative-hypothesis that makes the Target Phenomena true?
Does the placement of the alternative-hypothesis in the original argument matter? In both examples, the alternative-hypothesis replaced phenomena, not hypothesis. Coming up with an alternative hypothesis to the target phenomena is very different from adding an additional phenomena claim to the overall argument, especially in terms of assessing the relationship of support.
Application:
I understand that providing an alternative, true explanation to the initial Target Phenomena calls into question the strength of the original hypothesis - but I'm uncertain of how to apply the of truth in the alternative-hypothesis v. the strength of support/explanation in the original hypothesis to come to a concrete answer of what the level of support in the original argument actually is, especially if it exists on a spectrum?
Tying this back to the Target Phenomena and the alternative-hypothesis v. original hypothesis...
ORIGINAL MR 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.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS ARGUMENT
The trash bin is toppled. [The kids knocked over the trash.]
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.
The kids knocked over the Trash.
Both arguments provide information on Fat Cat, Trash, and Kids that inevitably makes it clear that they all exist in relation to the trash being toppled, but it's not clear to me that we are looking to explain the target phenomenon of WHO knocked over the trash or if Mr. Fat Cat is guilty (original argument focuses on Mr. Fat Cat knocking over the trash and eating the salmon within - which makes it clear we're looking for WHO toppled the bin, and if we're adding the alternative-hypothesis to the premise claim (1) The Trash is toppled. and then (2) The kids knocked over the trash, but claims 3-4 provide supporting evidence to explain that Mr. Fat Cat is potentially guilty of being involved with the toppled trash, I am unsure if what we're looking to explain for the target phenomena of [toppled trash] is a question of WHO is guilty or IF Mr. Fat Cat is guilty. I also feel like, "The kids knocked over the trash bin." is true but it doesn't really follow the explanatory framework of a hypothesis?
So I'm even more confused about how to apply this alternative-hypothesis tactic to pursue truth + examine the strength of the support for the explanation (since I'm not super clear on the bounds of what we're looking to explain to begin with are)
Examples:
Echoing the sentiments below that a real LSAT example of causal logic with a stim/question stem/answer choices would be super helpful for this lesson! I understand the gist of this concept, but not quite sure how to apply this tactic to answering a question correctly or how to apply this thinking to a question stem.
In this household Mr. Fat Cat is a hero. End of story
Alternative explanations:
if AC confirms possibility of the alternative, then the argument is weakened
If the AC eliminates the possibility of the alternative then the argument is strengthened.
"All Mr. Fat Cat did was eat trash salmon already on the kitchen floor. And that's something we can all relate to." I think J.Y. is Mr. Fat Cat lol
How does this translate to choosing the correct answer on the test? Like I'm confused on how this will relate at all....
@Brie97 Basically, causal reasoning questions usually have a stimulus that asks for an option that would either weaken or strengthen the argument that is provided to us.
Strengthening the argument would mean that we REJECT an alternative hypothesis, as that would further affirm that the hypothesis (aka conclusion) in our given argument is the true one and not anything else.
Weakening the argument would mean accepting that an alternative hypothesis could be true, which may conflict with the conclusion/hypothesis initially given to us by the argument.
TL;DR:
Overall, an alternative hypothesis (explanation for the phenomenon):
can either weaken an argument if taken to be true
or strengthen an argument if it is rejected
what is a cookie cutter argument?
For this lesson, my takeaway is that:
on the exam, we will be ask to weaken (or find true explanation for) the argument. All answer choices could be potential alternative hypothesis. The correct alternative hypothesis (answer choice) will be the one that, when it's true, explains the original phenomenon (and potentially strengthen the causal relationship? idk about this part). And it will weaken the original argument since the original conclusion (hypothesis) is no longer supported by the premises (phenomena).
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?
If you are given a weaken question and the stimulus is a causal argument the question stem will state the answer choices are true. So you are taking each answer choice to be true. It does not necessarily mean that every answer choice will be an alternative hypothesis. Some answer choices will be irrelevant or not even do anything to the argument. But if one of the answer choices is an alternative hypothesis and we are taking it to be true (because the question stem said all the answer choices are true) then it would weaken the argument because whatever hypothesis the stimulus gave is no longer supported since we have the true explanation in the answer choices. You were definitely on the right track! If you look at a weakening question example it make things more clear. I hope this made sense!
yes it does, I just came back from looking at the LR section lectures. So this makes more sense now. Thanks!
I am confused. The point of an alternative hypothesis is to test the strength of the argument? If so, do we come up with these alternative hypothesis ourselves after reading the argument? or are the alternative hypothesis going to be the ones present as answer choices?
#help (Added by Admin)
thinking of your own before reading the answers will help you find the correct answer much faster.
As another commenter said, being able to predict your own answer before looking at the answer choices is the best way to improve speed and be able to rule out possible wrong answers. But for causal arguments on the test, the alternative hypothesis will be given in the answer choices and the question stem will identify whether or not we take them as true or false.
good question i also want to know #help