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
For my guess assumption I thought: "Assuming tigers will attack people." Since it just states they are aggressive and CAN cause injury to people you're assuming they are going to attack people. If it isn't true and they don't attack people then there isn't an argument. Am I on the right track here?
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?
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?
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...?
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?
It's really hard for me to tease out the difference between the strength of an argument and the truthfulness of a claim. It's also really hard to think we've found every assumption.
Strengthen/Weaken answers being part of the assumption family of questions just blew my mind. Can you make equal assumptions about parts of premises to strengthen or weaken the argument as a whole?
Can anyone explain what “corollary” is? The lecture said, "through the lens of assumption, 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."
It seems that understanding assumptions ONLY in the context of the argument is important. Assumptions are only aspects of the arguments that are not explicitly stated. The reason the tiger being a mammal is an assumption is because it is not explicitly said to be a mammal in the passage.
4
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.
114 comments
I get confused by this because I thought a rule of thumb is to never make assumptions on the LSAT
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.
For my guess assumption I thought: "Assuming tigers will attack people." Since it just states they are aggressive and CAN cause injury to people you're assuming they are going to attack people. If it isn't true and they don't attack people then there isn't an argument. Am I on the right track here?
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?
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?
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?
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...?
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?
what does it mean when the weaker the argument, the more and less reasonable the assumptions?
It's really hard for me to tease out the difference between the strength of an argument and the truthfulness of a claim. It's also really hard to think we've found every assumption.
I'm confused. Could someone explain when is right to make an assumption? and when is it not?
I feel like every time I try to make an assumption I make the wrong ones and I do not know how to fix it.
Please help
It seems to me that the assumptions only came from the conclusion. So when looking for the conclusion, should I be looking in the conclusion?
Strengthen/Weaken answers being part of the assumption family of questions just blew my mind. Can you make equal assumptions about parts of premises to strengthen or weaken the argument as a whole?
mike tyson not a fan of this hypo
Can anyone explain what “corollary” is? The lecture said, "through the lens of assumption, 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."
It seems that understanding assumptions ONLY in the context of the argument is important. Assumptions are only aspects of the arguments that are not explicitly stated. The reason the tiger being a mammal is an assumption is because it is not explicitly said to be a mammal in the passage.