So are we trying to always make assumptions for arguments, or only when we need to fill in the gaps? And in that case, how do you know to make it a strong or weak assumption?
@SofiaHaddon assumptions are the missing premise (link) that either the conclusion follows organically or if false, completely wrecks or weakens it. After identifying the premises and conclusion, we have to ask ourselves, is their something missing that would tie this whole thing up more neatly?
if we are assuming the tiger is a mammal and that assumption was false would't it no longer be an argument rather just two separate claims? if the support relies on an assumption does that break the argument
if the assumption is false, is it still an argument? if the argument is made completely false, does that change anything about how you might answer a question
I thought of an assumption being 'Tigers are not suitable to keep as a pet' but then I really thought about it and wouldn't that just be a given based on the premise and conclusion? Like is that really an assumption?
@LaurinU not really, the assumption is a missing link between the already stated premise and conclusion. it is basically a "premise" which has not been stated in the argument initially provided to you.
in this sentence. "Assumptions are the missing links between the premises and the conclusion. If made true, they make the support stronger. If made false, they make the support weaker."
when he says support, is he talking about the premises ?
This makes sense, but also a tiny bit confused because I thought we weren't supposed to use any outside knowledge, even if it is "common sense". Yes, it is common sense that aggressiveness can cause injuries to people, but I thought we weren't supposed to know that.
@peyt0n I believe this is why the argument is made stronger when you add on "tigers are mammals" or the additional support about aggressiveness. The fact that these are common sense, outside knowledge claims otherwise is what makes them assumptions
So, because we stated that tigers are mammals, we cannot then say "oh, tigers could not be mammals". Therefore, because tigers are mammals and are aggressive, they would not be suitable to keep as a pet.
If we clarify that aggressiveness and potential to cause injuries to people are what makes an animal unsuitable to keep as a pet then we can go on to say that tigers are aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people then it is not suitable to keep as a pet.
Therefore, because a tiger is a mammal and it is not suitable to keep as a pet, then not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
@Hanifa In the case of this argument - the Tigers Argument - the assumptions JY discusses aren't stated in the argument. In the original argument, we only know one premise: "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people." The assumption in the diagram "Aggressiveness and the potential to cause injuries to people ARE factors that make an animal unsuitable to keep as a pet" is one of the so called "forgotten premises" that JY is referring to. That statement is nowhere to be found in the original argument, but it's an assumption we are making when we say that the conclusion that "not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" is supported by the original premise. As JY explains, it's an assumption because if we were to say that aggressiveness is NOT a factor for pet suitability, then the support between the OG premise and conclusion is weakened a lot. When I evaluate in the framework that the assumption is false, then I see that it doesn't really matter whether Tigers are aggressive or not because aggressiveness has nothing to do with how suitable a pet is. You can't reasonably infer that "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" if your only support is that tigers are aggressive, but aggressiveness has nothing to do with suitability. At that point, you just have two kind of unrelated statements that make it hard to see why this would be an argument. You could ask yourself: why aren't all mammals suitable to keep as a pet? If the assumption we're making about aggressiveness is false, then the fact that tigers are aggressive doesn't help you answer that "why." I think this will also make more sense in the context of assumption questions types, where you might be asked whether an assumption is strengthening or weakening an argument, but I hope this isn't too convoluted of a response and helps a little!
@AnandChoudhary Yes, it helps a lot! Thank you very much!
I thought the assumptions, which were added after, were part of the text, but they are not. Those are the assumptions we have and without them, like you said, there is no link or relationship between the two statements and they sound two unrelated statements.
@ArianaVerner We understand that tigers are mammals in real life. However, in this context, it is not explicitly stated. Unless stated, we must assume/infer. It is more like an unspoken understanding.
Assumptions can be hidden as premise which make them hard to find sometimes. Questioning a statement that contains an opinion or a premise without support makes it an assumption.
I am starting to believe that assumptions can only really weaken an argument. So when we are thinking about assumptions, the next question to ask is "how reasonable is this assumption?" and if that assumption is unreasonable, it really weakens the argument.
So "tigers are mammals" hurts the argument by not being stated. But it doesn't ruin the argument because it's a relatively straight forward fact. However, the second assumption about aggressiveness and injuries is much more unreasonable to make, therefor significantly weakens the argument by leaving it out.
So, how would this assumption (strong argument or weak argument) apply to an LSAT question? Will the question ask to choose which statement is the best associated with being false?
@isabellagirjikian I think that it applies for those questions that ask something along the lines of "Which of the following statements, if true, most support the claim ____?" This is where the weak -> strong spectrum would come into play and you have to decide which one is the strongest.
@SofiaAviles I believe that just determines the strength of the assumption. The more reasonable the assumption is, if made false, will weaken the argument greatly. A less reasonable assumption, when made false, will not as greatly affect the strength of the argument.
@KeziaH19 I don't know how much this helps, but this is different from "making an assumption". This lesson is telling us that assumptions that are not confirmed in an argument will weaken the argument's support. What you mean by making an assumption is assuming something is true without it being stated as such. That advice is still valid, just related to a different context!
Assumptions are baked in to the argument; that means that making them true goes in favor of the argument, but making them false weakens it. The argument is build up brick by brick and making it false removes one of the bricks of the wall
145 comments
So are we trying to always make assumptions for arguments, or only when we need to fill in the gaps? And in that case, how do you know to make it a strong or weak assumption?
@SofiaHaddon assumptions are the missing premise (link) that either the conclusion follows organically or if false, completely wrecks or weakens it. After identifying the premises and conclusion, we have to ask ourselves, is their something missing that would tie this whole thing up more neatly?
if we are assuming the tiger is a mammal and that assumption was false would't it no longer be an argument rather just two separate claims? if the support relies on an assumption does that break the argument
if the assumption is false, is it still an argument? if the argument is made completely false, does that change anything about how you might answer a question
@Carlybass based on my understanding a false assumption is still an argument, just a terrible one
I thought of an assumption being 'Tigers are not suitable to keep as a pet' but then I really thought about it and wouldn't that just be a given based on the premise and conclusion? Like is that really an assumption?
Would this mean that basically every thing is an assumption?
@LaurinU not really, the assumption is a missing link between the already stated premise and conclusion. it is basically a "premise" which has not been stated in the argument initially provided to you.
in this sentence. "Assumptions are the missing links between the premises and the conclusion. If made true, they make the support stronger. If made false, they make the support weaker."
when he says support, is he talking about the premises ?
@KassandraMadrgial9 I think he's more so talking about the support relationship between the premises and the conclusion
Joe Exoctic strongly disagrees with the second assumption
This makes sense, but also a tiny bit confused because I thought we weren't supposed to use any outside knowledge, even if it is "common sense". Yes, it is common sense that aggressiveness can cause injuries to people, but I thought we weren't supposed to know that.
@peyt0n I believe this is why the argument is made stronger when you add on "tigers are mammals" or the additional support about aggressiveness. The fact that these are common sense, outside knowledge claims otherwise is what makes them assumptions
So, because we stated that tigers are mammals, we cannot then say "oh, tigers could not be mammals". Therefore, because tigers are mammals and are aggressive, they would not be suitable to keep as a pet.
If we clarify that aggressiveness and potential to cause injuries to people are what makes an animal unsuitable to keep as a pet then we can go on to say that tigers are aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people then it is not suitable to keep as a pet.
Therefore, because a tiger is a mammal and it is not suitable to keep as a pet, then not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.
So if assumptions are stated in the argument, then why call it " forgotten premise"?
Are there times that they may not clearly stated and we have to infer from the context?
@Hanifa In the case of this argument - the Tigers Argument - the assumptions JY discusses aren't stated in the argument. In the original argument, we only know one premise: "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people." The assumption in the diagram "Aggressiveness and the potential to cause injuries to people ARE factors that make an animal unsuitable to keep as a pet" is one of the so called "forgotten premises" that JY is referring to. That statement is nowhere to be found in the original argument, but it's an assumption we are making when we say that the conclusion that "not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" is supported by the original premise. As JY explains, it's an assumption because if we were to say that aggressiveness is NOT a factor for pet suitability, then the support between the OG premise and conclusion is weakened a lot. When I evaluate in the framework that the assumption is false, then I see that it doesn't really matter whether Tigers are aggressive or not because aggressiveness has nothing to do with how suitable a pet is. You can't reasonably infer that "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet" if your only support is that tigers are aggressive, but aggressiveness has nothing to do with suitability. At that point, you just have two kind of unrelated statements that make it hard to see why this would be an argument. You could ask yourself: why aren't all mammals suitable to keep as a pet? If the assumption we're making about aggressiveness is false, then the fact that tigers are aggressive doesn't help you answer that "why." I think this will also make more sense in the context of assumption questions types, where you might be asked whether an assumption is strengthening or weakening an argument, but I hope this isn't too convoluted of a response and helps a little!
@AnandChoudhary Yes, it helps a lot! Thank you very much!
I thought the assumptions, which were added after, were part of the text, but they are not. Those are the assumptions we have and without them, like you said, there is no link or relationship between the two statements and they sound two unrelated statements.
How is it an assumption that tigers are mammals when it is a fact? Is it because we know it in the regular world but it isnt stated in the argument?
@ArianaVerner We understand that tigers are mammals in real life. However, in this context, it is not explicitly stated. Unless stated, we must assume/infer. It is more like an unspoken understanding.
@Qsimpkins
Understood. Thank you so much.
Assumptions can be hidden as premise which make them hard to find sometimes. Questioning a statement that contains an opinion or a premise without support makes it an assumption.
So a premise is an assumption that is 1000% true, but an assumption can be true or false/correct or incorrect
I am starting to believe that assumptions can only really weaken an argument. So when we are thinking about assumptions, the next question to ask is "how reasonable is this assumption?" and if that assumption is unreasonable, it really weakens the argument.
So "tigers are mammals" hurts the argument by not being stated. But it doesn't ruin the argument because it's a relatively straight forward fact. However, the second assumption about aggressiveness and injuries is much more unreasonable to make, therefor significantly weakens the argument by leaving it out.
So, how would this assumption (strong argument or weak argument) apply to an LSAT question? Will the question ask to choose which statement is the best associated with being false?
@isabellagirjikian I’m wondering the same thing
@isabellagirjikian I think that it applies for those questions that ask something along the lines of "Which of the following statements, if true, most support the claim ____?" This is where the weak -> strong spectrum would come into play and you have to decide which one is the strongest.
do all assumptions if made false, make the support weaker? or is there an instance where a false assumption doesn't have an effect?
@SofiaAviles I believe that just determines the strength of the assumption. The more reasonable the assumption is, if made false, will weaken the argument greatly. A less reasonable assumption, when made false, will not as greatly affect the strength of the argument.
Damn, we really did jump into the meat and potatoes already
I get confused by this because I thought a rule of thumb is to never make assumptions on the LSAT
@KeziaH19 I don't know how much this helps, but this is different from "making an assumption". This lesson is telling us that assumptions that are not confirmed in an argument will weaken the argument's support. What you mean by making an assumption is assuming something is true without it being stated as such. That advice is still valid, just related to a different context!
Question would this be useful for weaken strength and necessary assumption question and etc?
If we understand the definition of mammals and tigers. And make connections with the two words/ phrases. That is considered a assumption?
Assumptions are baked in to the argument; that means that making them true goes in favor of the argument, but making them false weakens it. The argument is build up brick by brick and making it false removes one of the bricks of the wall
Premise: Calorie Deficits DO NOT matter because you can just lose weight by working out.
Premise: If you are hungry, it is best to eat less calorie-rich foods such as vegetables and fruits that have fewer calories.
Premise: Eating less food means fewer calories overall.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you are in a calorie deficit, you will lose weight.
Another Example:
Premise: People who care about their weight do not eat sweets. Omar's weight is normal, so he must not eat Hershey's.
Assumption: Hershey's is a sweet.
People that have good skincare do not use fragranced products. Alexis' skincare is great, so she must not use neutrogena.
Assumption: Neutrogena is a fragranced skin care product.
This lesson changed my whole game to the LSAT.
assumption missing link between premise and conclusion
if true makes support stronger
if made false they make support weaker