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.
Just to confirm, is the Target Phenomena always going to just the first claim/first premise?
For the Mr. Fat Cat argument, I noticed a flaw in my thought process when looking at the modified-alternative hypothesis argument and presumed that "Mr. Fat Cat toppled the trash bin" was the Target Phenomena. I know this is incorrect just by looking at the previous lesson that PHENOMENA = PREMISE and HYPOTHESIS = CONCLUSION.
However, with how LSAT stim is written, can I confidently presume that the first claim/premise is the Target Phenomena? Or should we assess the causal logic argument as a whole and determine what the Target Phenomena is for ourselves? Is it the main phenomena we are trying to find an explanation to or just the first phenomena?
Looking at the modified-alternative hypothesis argument of the Mr. Fat Cat argument:
The trash bin is toppled.
It's contents including salmon, are spilled.
Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter.
Mr. Fat Cat is licking his paws in the way he does after having eaten.
The kids knocked over the trash bin.
The question of what is the Target Phenomena isn't immediately clear to me because the argument talks about a trash bin, Mr. Fat Cat, and now kids. Ultimately when I assess what these all have in common it's relation to the trash bin being toppled [claim (3) and (4) point to Mr. Fat Cat > licking paws > eating > salmon > from trash] But I also know that stim on the LSAT will have modifiers/cluster sentences that will likely be even more complex, so I am not sure if the Target Phenomenon will always be explicit in the first claim/premise or if it's something more implicit for us to determine when examining the support between PHENOMENON > HYPOTHESIS Arguments.
I realized the correct Target Phenomenon [Toppled Trash Bin] honestly because I referred to the original hypothesis:
"Therefore, Mr. Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within"
Through the original order of the claims + the original hypothesis, I know that Toppled Trash Bin is the Target Phenomena because of how clearly it is emphasized.
Would love any #help or #insight on how others approach this or any critiques/advice to my thought processes!
@chelseamaripage ... I also just realized that "The kids knocked over the trash bin." is set to replace claim #1. But if this is an alternative-hypothesis framework, why would "The kids knocked over the trash bin" not replace the the original hypothesis? Especially if the form/structure of a Phenomenon-Hypothesis Argument is:
Phenomenon (Premise) > Hypothesis (Conclusion)?
Aren't we just changing the Phenomenon (first claim/first premise) and thus, potentially disrupting finding the correct Target Phenomenon?
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
Speaking very technically, taking (2) to be true (A massive algae bloom starved the dolphins) does not necessarily end our search. While the dolphins may have been starved, could something else not have killed them while they were starving? An analogous situation would be one dying of a gunshot wound while they had the flu. You may very well think that the flu was the cause of their death (or caused the thing which causes their death), but we should be careful about assuming that one thing (however likely for death) guarantees their death, especially when an intervening phenomenon may break the chain of causation. This may be a pedantic point, but one I found worth mentioning.
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.
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!
heres how i understood it. When looking at a questions stems answer choices, if an answer choice shows an alternate cause to the hypothesis (i.e. the dolhpins didnt die because of the mining operation but rather because of starvation) that would would weaken the hypothesis. so if the question stem is asking you to weaken the argument youve got your answer, but if its asking you to strengthen it, then you know which option to rule out.
"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
"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 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.
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.
40 comments
I knew the claims against Mr. Fat Cat were a witch hunt! #JusticeforFatCat
#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.
Just to confirm, is the Target Phenomena always going to just the first claim/first premise?
For the Mr. Fat Cat argument, I noticed a flaw in my thought process when looking at the modified-alternative hypothesis argument and presumed that "Mr. Fat Cat toppled the trash bin" was the Target Phenomena. I know this is incorrect just by looking at the previous lesson that PHENOMENA = PREMISE and HYPOTHESIS = CONCLUSION.
However, with how LSAT stim is written, can I confidently presume that the first claim/premise is the Target Phenomena? Or should we assess the causal logic argument as a whole and determine what the Target Phenomena is for ourselves? Is it the main phenomena we are trying to find an explanation to or just the first phenomena?
Looking at the modified-alternative hypothesis argument of the Mr. Fat Cat argument:
The trash bin is toppled.
It's contents including salmon, are spilled.
Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter.
Mr. Fat Cat is licking his paws in the way he does after having eaten.
The kids knocked over the trash bin.
The question of what is the Target Phenomena isn't immediately clear to me because the argument talks about a trash bin, Mr. Fat Cat, and now kids. Ultimately when I assess what these all have in common it's relation to the trash bin being toppled [claim (3) and (4) point to Mr. Fat Cat > licking paws > eating > salmon > from trash] But I also know that stim on the LSAT will have modifiers/cluster sentences that will likely be even more complex, so I am not sure if the Target Phenomenon will always be explicit in the first claim/premise or if it's something more implicit for us to determine when examining the support between PHENOMENON > HYPOTHESIS Arguments.
I realized the correct Target Phenomenon [Toppled Trash Bin] honestly because I referred to the original hypothesis:
"Therefore, Mr. Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within"
Through the original order of the claims + the original hypothesis, I know that Toppled Trash Bin is the Target Phenomena because of how clearly it is emphasized.
Would love any #help or #insight on how others approach this or any critiques/advice to my thought processes!
@chelseamaripage ... I also just realized that "The kids knocked over the trash bin." is set to replace claim #1. But if this is an alternative-hypothesis framework, why would "The kids knocked over the trash bin" not replace the the original hypothesis? Especially if the form/structure of a Phenomenon-Hypothesis Argument is:
Phenomenon (Premise) > Hypothesis (Conclusion)?
Aren't we just changing the Phenomenon (first claim/first premise) and thus, potentially disrupting finding the correct Target Phenomenon?
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.
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.
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
Finally justice for Mr. Fat Cat!! It only took hours worth of content, but he finally isn't the scapegoat <3
Don't tell me you've never done that LOLLLLLLLL
@jjjjffff Dont underestimate trash salmon.
Speaking very technically, taking (2) to be true (A massive algae bloom starved the dolphins) does not necessarily end our search. While the dolphins may have been starved, could something else not have killed them while they were starving? An analogous situation would be one dying of a gunshot wound while they had the flu. You may very well think that the flu was the cause of their death (or caused the thing which causes their death), but we should be careful about assuming that one thing (however likely for death) guarantees their death, especially when an intervening phenomenon may break the chain of causation. This may be a pedantic point, but one I found worth mentioning.
"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
This video talks about alternative hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZfmzq69iM
Hypothesis or in other words, the conclusion, right?
Correct
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.
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.
#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
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!
Can someone explain this better. I’m still confused…
This section REALLY needs examples.
the "let's review" section really confused me, can someone please provide an example on what this would look like?
heres how i understood it. When looking at a questions stems answer choices, if an answer choice shows an alternate cause to the hypothesis (i.e. the dolhpins didnt die because of the mining operation but rather because of starvation) that would would weaken the hypothesis. so if the question stem is asking you to weaken the argument youve got your answer, but if its asking you to strengthen it, then you know which option to rule out.
I was soo lost; I had to reread this twice to understand. An example in this section would indeed be helpful, please.
"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
"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
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.
good question i also want to know #help
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.