@hataie 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
@Jaximous3 Yes, there are certainly a few questions that actually require you to know some basic understandings of the world or semi-advanced vocabulary understandings. But, in 99 percent of cases, just rely on the premises and the strength of their support to the conclusion.
The LSAT writers know the tests like the back of their hand, EVERY single word that is in an LSAT question, whether its the stimulus or answer choice is critically analyzed by the writers before it is made into a real question. They know we are going to be torn with our real world knowledge compared to what is in the premises, it is all intentional to see how well we can discern premises, not our real world knowledge of the world.
Will the assumptions always be there worded for you? and you have to depict what premise is the assumption? or is it not written and its what you assume?
@KayleeMurray Assumptions are never written in the Stimulus, they are always unstated, it is our job to find which assumptions are being made and then we must evaluate how important the assumptions are to the strength of support in the argument. Keep your questions in mind as you continue through the core curriculum because J.Y. made this chronologically so that the questions you get from one module will be answered in the next.
My issue lies in thinking about the assumptions. They are pretty obvious but for some reason its difficult to think what the assumptions are for an argument. It's only after they acknowledge an assumption that it becomes super clear for me. Whats a method to formulating these assumptions on your own?
@HilarySackor For me, they usually stick out like crazy when I get questions that ask "Which of the following is an assumption that needs to be made for the argument to logically follow?". The thing you have to look for is that these questions will make some kind of claim, and then the conclusion seems to connect to this claim indirectly. So for example:
People that have clean houses do not own messy animals. Peter's house is clean, thus he must not own a pig.
For this argument to logically follow, we must assume that pigs are messy animals. Keep in mind pigs aren't messy because of our common knowledge of how pigs enjoy rolling around in mud, but just because of what the first claim states, and what the conclusion is stating based on the claim. You could say the above example with ANY animal (dog, beaver, cat, etc.) and the assumption would still be the same, but for that animal instead of a pig.
@JamesHague yes, and I almost look at the argument with a critical lens. "How can I attack this argument"? So when I read the initial argument, I immediately asked myself, "Okay, but what if someone wants a pet BECAUSE they are dangerous? Wouldn't that make it suitable?"
I have an issue wrapping my head around this: "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."
In this statement, does that mean that a stronger argument has A FEWER NUMBER of stronger claims? Thus, meaning that a weaker argument has a MORE NUMEROUS amount of assumptions, but those are less reasonable? Am I getting that right?
Im confused with the "If made true, they make the support stronger. If made false, they make the support weaker." How do you decide to make the assumption true or false? I see that making them true in the tiger scenario strengthens the support but how are you supposed to know which way to assume...if its an assumption...?
@molebag In the LSAT, assumption questions are generally framed as "What is the assumption required to make this work?" Not, "is the assumption you're making true or false?" So, for the purposes of this exercise, we can assume the assumption is always true, in the same way the premise is always true. That's what makes it an "invisible premise."
Questions that ask "Which of the following would weaken the argument?" might touch on false assumptions.
In either case, for the purposes of the LSAT, you'll know which way you're supposed to assume.
I think an assumption is similar to the connective tissue between the muscles and a bone. The muscles would act as the premise(s) and a bone as the conclusion.
Wait I think I get it now. The mistake we might all be making, is still thinking in the terms of the real world. Now the argument before stated this "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people", since the entire concept of the LSAT is being a persuasive argument and not explicitly relying on reality, I can still ask what if the tiger is not a mammal? Just right there, I weakened the argument in terms of the LSAT and not reality, now let's go further. After they include the assumptions that Tigers are mammals, that aggressiveness causes injuries, therefore not all mammals can be pets, it strengthens the argument yes, however, still makes it weak at the same time. I can even include another assumption, but dogs are kind so why is every mammal not suitable? contrary to the Disney argument which explicitly gave us 2 choices either he proportionated the goats or had to prostate through the alter, we had no links to assume anything else, making is a stronger argument. This is making me feel like I am going crazy
Now I am confused. The previous lessons stated about the form of validity and not to think about the true reality. Now at first, I understood on why the tiger argument, was not that strong. since it stated tigers are aggressive, so not every mammal is suitable to be a pet. the word every generalizes every pet, however we only had one example which was a tiger, and someone would ask, well what about a hamster or a dog, which are mammals as well, now that weakens the argument. However, I am confused how including the assumption that tigers are mammals, strengthens the argument when in fact just explicitly generalizes mammals as a whole to not be suitable as pets?
@KS49 When an argument is weak, there are more assumptions that are less reasonable. When an argument is strong, there are less assumption that are more reasonable.
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.
129 comments
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?
@hataie 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.
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
How do assumptions differ from real world info LSAT preys upon us assuming?
@Jaximous3 Yes, there are certainly a few questions that actually require you to know some basic understandings of the world or semi-advanced vocabulary understandings. But, in 99 percent of cases, just rely on the premises and the strength of their support to the conclusion.
The LSAT writers know the tests like the back of their hand, EVERY single word that is in an LSAT question, whether its the stimulus or answer choice is critically analyzed by the writers before it is made into a real question. They know we are going to be torn with our real world knowledge compared to what is in the premises, it is all intentional to see how well we can discern premises, not our real world knowledge of the world.
Will the assumptions always be there worded for you? and you have to depict what premise is the assumption? or is it not written and its what you assume?
@KayleeMurray I think that the question stem is what gives it away
@KayleeMurray Assumptions are never written in the Stimulus, they are always unstated, it is our job to find which assumptions are being made and then we must evaluate how important the assumptions are to the strength of support in the argument. Keep your questions in mind as you continue through the core curriculum because J.Y. made this chronologically so that the questions you get from one module will be answered in the next.
My issue lies in thinking about the assumptions. They are pretty obvious but for some reason its difficult to think what the assumptions are for an argument. It's only after they acknowledge an assumption that it becomes super clear for me. Whats a method to formulating these assumptions on your own?
@HilarySackor I also have difficulties in be able to find the assumptions in he argument.
@HilarySackor For me, they usually stick out like crazy when I get questions that ask "Which of the following is an assumption that needs to be made for the argument to logically follow?". The thing you have to look for is that these questions will make some kind of claim, and then the conclusion seems to connect to this claim indirectly. So for example:
People that have clean houses do not own messy animals. Peter's house is clean, thus he must not own a pig.
For this argument to logically follow, we must assume that pigs are messy animals. Keep in mind pigs aren't messy because of our common knowledge of how pigs enjoy rolling around in mud, but just because of what the first claim states, and what the conclusion is stating based on the claim. You could say the above example with ANY animal (dog, beaver, cat, etc.) and the assumption would still be the same, but for that animal instead of a pig.
@JamesHague yes, and I almost look at the argument with a critical lens. "How can I attack this argument"? So when I read the initial argument, I immediately asked myself, "Okay, but what if someone wants a pet BECAUSE they are dangerous? Wouldn't that make it suitable?"
I have an issue wrapping my head around this: "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."
In this statement, does that mean that a stronger argument has A FEWER NUMBER of stronger claims? Thus, meaning that a weaker argument has a MORE NUMEROUS amount of assumptions, but those are less reasonable? Am I getting that right?
@Izzy Yes, this is correct.
@Ameley101 Could you explain this more? Trying to understand as these assumptions confuse me with this order?
Im confused with the "If made true, they make the support stronger. If made false, they make the support weaker." How do you decide to make the assumption true or false? I see that making them true in the tiger scenario strengthens the support but how are you supposed to know which way to assume...if its an assumption...?
@molebag In the LSAT, assumption questions are generally framed as "What is the assumption required to make this work?" Not, "is the assumption you're making true or false?" So, for the purposes of this exercise, we can assume the assumption is always true, in the same way the premise is always true. That's what makes it an "invisible premise."
Questions that ask "Which of the following would weaken the argument?" might touch on false assumptions.
In either case, for the purposes of the LSAT, you'll know which way you're supposed to assume.
I think an assumption is similar to the connective tissue between the muscles and a bone. The muscles would act as the premise(s) and a bone as the conclusion.
@adams great analogy
Wait I think I get it now. The mistake we might all be making, is still thinking in the terms of the real world. Now the argument before stated this "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people", since the entire concept of the LSAT is being a persuasive argument and not explicitly relying on reality, I can still ask what if the tiger is not a mammal? Just right there, I weakened the argument in terms of the LSAT and not reality, now let's go further. After they include the assumptions that Tigers are mammals, that aggressiveness causes injuries, therefore not all mammals can be pets, it strengthens the argument yes, however, still makes it weak at the same time. I can even include another assumption, but dogs are kind so why is every mammal not suitable? contrary to the Disney argument which explicitly gave us 2 choices either he proportionated the goats or had to prostate through the alter, we had no links to assume anything else, making is a stronger argument. This is making me feel like I am going crazy
@JimmyCrosbyMalanda i get what you're saying. Thanks this helped me.
@JimmyCrosbyMalanda Your going crazy in the best way possible, you got it all right
@JimmyCrosbyMalanda, This helped me a lot, thank you!
Now I am confused. The previous lessons stated about the form of validity and not to think about the true reality. Now at first, I understood on why the tiger argument, was not that strong. since it stated tigers are aggressive, so not every mammal is suitable to be a pet. the word every generalizes every pet, however we only had one example which was a tiger, and someone would ask, well what about a hamster or a dog, which are mammals as well, now that weakens the argument. However, I am confused how including the assumption that tigers are mammals, strengthens the argument when in fact just explicitly generalizes mammals as a whole to not be suitable as pets?
what does it mean when the weaker the argument, the more and less reasonable the assumptions?
@KS49 When an argument is weak, there are more assumptions that are less reasonable. When an argument is strong, there are less assumption that are more reasonable.