When we say "An argument is weak because it contains assumptions", what we generally mean is that "An argument is weak because it relies on one or more unreasonable assumptions". Strong arguments can contains some assumptions especially ones inherent in the non-specificity of language, but they are reasonable ones.
And what is a reasonable and acceptable argument to make in daily life, may not work in a legal context where certain values or backgrounds may not be universal.
Reading through some of the comments, I think the easiest way to sum up assumptions on the LSAT is to look at the test (as a whole) as a separate world with separate rules than what we know. In our world, tigers are mammals, we know that. But in LSAT, tigers could conform to any kind of species unless explicitly stated otherwise. Approach each stimulus with suspicion and skepticism.
@MyNguyen I view this differently. I think of this in terms of reliability. Tigers are mammals is a very reliable assumption. Aggressiveness makes an animal unsuitable as a pet is less reliable (as shown in the example), but it still makes sense.
One of my favorite and most beneficial things I took away from the original LR curriculum was that the spectrum was depicted beautifully.
terrible argument (nearly no support) = lots or unreasonable assumptions ------ decent argument (some/weak support) = some assumptions may be questionable ---------- good argument (lots/strong support) = a few, reasonable assumptions --------- perfect argument (valid) = no assumptions
So if I have everything straight, all arguments follow the basis of a premise + conclusion. The strength of an argument depends on the support of the premise to the conclusion and the strength of the support depends on if the premise were to be true, how much would that make the conclusion true. The strength of support also is determined by how many assumptions are made and how reasonable they are. The more assumptions needed to be made and the less reasonable they are, the weaker the support thus the weaker the argument is.
I just want to correct one thing: According to The Loophole in Logical Reasoning by Ellen Cassidy, you NEVER question the premise. It could be the most ridiculous thing but you have to accept the premise as true. It is the conclusion we question. If the premise does not support the conclusion, then we have to find the assumption.
I am also using the Loophole. I am wondering how people are using the 7Sage curriculum in time with the Loophole book? By this I mean to ask, are people generally doing one or the other first or is there a hack for which point to be in both modalities, at a certain time that works for people?
Personally, I started with the loophole book and mad it to Chapter 5 before my fee waiver came through, and I signed up for 7Sage. Now I'm feeling like this is a bit of a review with a twist (in the best way).
I think I'm starting to understand how the LSAT likes to structure arguments. When you structure the premises and the conclusion for your argument, you have to measure their strength based on the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. If the premises are super duper true, it makes the argument really strong. But if the premises are reasonably true, they may have merit, but they can be still weakened by criticism. In the tigers argument. tigers are mammals is a way more valid premise than the aggressiveness and ability to harm others premise. Because we know that tigers are mammals, but we can't always be certain aggression and ability to harm are always unsuitable. That is what's key with assumptions. Reasonableness.
What I'm taking away from this is that an argument is made up of a premise + conclusion. The premise often times omits details that may lead to a conclusion because the writer may feel it is unnecessary, thus relying on readers to make assumptions. Assumptions, in general, tend to weaken an argument by setting the scope on more broad terms, even a good assumption can have holes poked in it. Thus, by having these assumptions down as another premise in words, it narrows the scope and sets it as fact (in the context that we assume it is true).
Assumptions on their own are rated on a scale between good and bad assumptions as some can be almost deemed fact in the sense there is very little to no holes to poke while others leave themselves open to alternative ideas and misinterpretation.
Yes, very good. If we forced writers to explicitly state every assumption, it would bury their arguments. There's too much. Strong arguments contain mostly true assumptions. Arguments are vulnerable to the extent that they make unreasonable or false assumptions.
Thank you for this insight! It is helpful to keep in mind that of course it would be ridiculous for there to be a laundry list of contingencies in arguments. It would be too much to follow
This is a little confusing to me because, a couple lessons ago, we were told to not use outside knowledge on this test and to just assume what you are reading is true, but now this is saying to make assumptions and the more true the assumptions are the stronger the argument. But in order to determine that we need to use our outside knowledge so...
Assumptions, in this context, are derived from the argument rather than from preexisting knowledge. In this question, the premise--that not all mammals are suitable to be kept as pets--categorizes tigers as if they are mammals. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, in the context of this argument, that Tigers are mammals. Even though the conditions of this argument reflect real world knowledge, it operates within its own logical framework independent of real world knowledge. In other words, the assumption is derived from the argument itself, NOT from the biological fact that tigers are mammals.
This was well said. I think an additional tidbit of information that is helpful to think about, is that if the question following the stimulus was "which of the following, if true, would most weaken the authors argument?" and there was an option that stated, "Tigers are not mammals" that would easily be the right answer even though in the real world, we know that is not true. Everything on the LSAT is self-contained.
If we are deriving it from knowledge in the question, wouldn't that also lead us to assume that the fact that having an aggressive pet is undesirable as absolutely true, due to this logic? I really like this explanation but would like clarification on this
Oh my God..... I get it. THE REAL WORLD LOGIC DOES NOT MATTER. LSAT logic exists in a vaccuum, of course some real life context and knowledge is used but the test wants you to find the assumptions that support or negate a premise and conclusion.
@jaypring This is what I'm starting to know as the truth about the LSAT as I go through these lessons, but I think I'm still not fully grasping it.
"Tigers are mammals" is a true assumption, making it more reasonable. A couple of lessons ago, J.Y. said that stronger arguments have "fewer and more reasonable" assumptions. Let's call this one Assumption A.
"Aggressiveness and the potential to cause injuries to people are factors that make an animal unsuitable to keep as a pet" is a "reasonable, true in most circumstances but false in some situations" assumption. Let's call this one Assumption B.
So if a question were asking about an assumption that would be necessary for the conclusion that tigers are not suitable as pets, we would want to pick Assumption A. But if Assumption A isn't an option, and we have Assumption B as an option, but there's some option Assumption C which is less reasonable than Assumption B, we would pick Assumption B? Even though it's not perfect but it's still more reasonable than Assumption B?
Is it just all circumstantial? What am I not understanding here?
@everleez I think you are on to the right reasoning. It is just hard to understand which answer makes more sense for the arguement. I try to always stay within the scope of the argument.. if the question type allows.
Is the assumption "Tigers are mammals" more reasonable based off our outside knowledge of this to be true, or is it because it's simply less vulnerable to criticism than the other assumption?
@Derekt19 it's not really outside knowledge in my opinion. seems like the statement "tigers are mammals" is simply a definition. you know that from outside knowledge, but it is also being stipulated in this case.
@Derekt19 The claim that "Tigers are mammals" is less vulnerable to criticism, because there is not much for someone to dispute the claim, other than stating "Tigers are reptiles."
@Derekt19 to add to this, in the assumption that tigers aren't mammals that still doesn't negate the main argument for why mammals shouldn't be kept as a pet. The main point of the conclusion is that they are aggressive and therefore unsuitable, but a tiger is just an example (any mammal can be replaced for because of their aggressive behavior). That is why targeting the main point of aggressiveness weakens the argument more, because it showcases that even violent mammals can still be kept as a pet. So it's not really 'outside knowledge' per-say but more about seeing what part of the conclusion can be used to best weaken the argument (looking at it from a different perspective).
@Derekt19 There are occasions where small assumptions are allowed and even necessary. This one is more to illustrate the idea of reasonability in arguments, I think.
@Derekt19 it's the same in programming. You have an argument, here it's tigers. And you have to define the argument. Here was define tigers = mammals by using the word 'are'. The assumption we're making here is that the definition of tigers being mammals is true.
@MonicaAponte I don't think you can do this because then you would have to apply it to the "potential to cause injury" assumption. And take that as true.
@MonicaAponte to build onto your comment - I think it isn't outside knowledge because the argument is 'telling us' that tigers are mammals.. Which is to say, it is expected of us to assume that tigers are mammals as a result of the presented premise and conclusion.
@Derekt19 It is not that the assumptions themselves are more vulnerable to criticisms, it is that the argument is more vulnerable to criticism due to the assumptions it makes. We typically do not call assumptions vulnerable, we say they make the argument vulnerable
In this case, the assumption that tigers are mammals is a highly reasonable assumption because there is no debate, it is scientifically proven that tigers are mammals. This assumption does not really have too much of an effect on the argument
But, there is debate on whether aggressiveness and potential to cause harm is an unsuitable characteristic for a pet. This assumption can make the argument highly vulnerable.
It's hard to understand when we should bring real-world logic/common to answer questions. On one hand, I hear not to do this, and on the other hand, I hear that it makes more sense to place a stronger assumption on tigers being mammals vs. tigers being "Aggressiveness and the potential to cause serious injuries to people make an animal unsuitable as a pet."
We are told to completely avoid using outside knowledge. I'm fine with that. If the premise says that "tigers are mammals" or "tigers are not mammals" that is fact.
Yet in this lesson, the assumption that "tigers are mammals" is presented as a strong assumptions primarily BECAUSE of our outside knowledge that tigers are mammals.
Is this because the last lesson had the tiger-mammal situation as a premise and this one has the tiger-mammal situation as an assumption? Thus, premises are things that we cannot question/critique but assumptions are things that are open to questioning/critique.
I think youre asking a good question and its always good to be decerning when bringing in outside knowlegde but in this case, the assumption: " tigers are mammals" is heavly implied in the stimulus and it is a commonly held belief that tigers are mammals. The stimulus introduced the "knowledge" and we just made a judgement about it. Where you start to get into trouble with outside knowledge is when it is not directly mentioned in the stimulus (I.e. " we know not many people have tigers as pets"). The later, while true in our universe, is not supported by stimulus/may not be true in the "universe" the LSAT has created for the specific question. Its a hard line to find but, I hope this helps :)
I'm noticing a lot of mention of the context of reasonability and what a reasonable person would perceive, and this is very lawyerly; criminal cases are aimed to prove innocence/guilt beyond a reasonable doubt according to the expectations of a reasonable individual, for instance. It's very encouraging to see a tangible concept related to our profession being brought up so early; it makes it feel all the more real and achievable!
I am still a little confused on the tigers are mammals fact. I thought we were supposed to rely on the stimulus without using any outside information/pre-conceived notions.... in this case it seems like we are.
@Kellbell206 The rule "don't use outside information" applies to conclusions and reasoning, not to basic background facts that any reasonable person would accept without question.
The LSAT has always operated with an implicit assumption that you're a rational, informed adult. "Tigers are mammals" falls into that category, it's not a debatable inference, it's just simply A fact.
Whereas the second assumption about aggressiveness and unsuitability is something we can debate and people may disagree on. They do it in such a slick way you don't even realize. The LSAT does this constantly, they dress up a debatable assumption in very matter-of-fact language so you don't notice the gap.
One thing I am clear about is that we should not MAKE any assumptions based on our prior knowledge on LSA; the information presented could be false, but we are not there to verify the accuracy of the information . However, what I dont understand is the extent to which this information could be false?
I assume ( im not supposed to haha) there could be false statistics, or ideas or beliefs, but what about universally known facts like " Honey is sweet" or " Tigers are mammals".
The tiger argument did not state " tigers are mammals" at the beginning and throughout the lessons, we made that assumption from our own knowledge and we categorized it as the second strongest argument. If we are not to make any assumptions; then, we should not have made that assumptions about Tigers either and categorized the Tiger argument as the weakest because of lack of premises to indicate the tigers are mammals.
I would like to know if there will be information on the test that are in contrast to facts known universally?
@Hanifa I understand what you are saying. There seems to be a gray area of needing to know background info and not needing to know anything at all. I have noticed that this process is a bit intuitive. There are instances where we need to be able to conceptualize and look at details as pieces to a puzzle (assumptions/inferences)... but there are also times where the situation is more black and white, and there is no need to emphasize or dissect layers. There are going to be times where you simply know that something is true, and you will apply your understanding passively. Please remember that we know that tigers are mammals, but are some ppl that do not know.
I am not sure if I am truly grasping this lesson about assumptions. It's confusing, I understand what assumption is, but in terms of connecting it to the agrument is where I am having a hard time.
The more "air tight" an assumption can be, the stronger the argument. Tigers are (or are not) definitively mammals, therefore there is less to criticize. The less air tight, aggressiveness is not a good trait in pets, the more open to criticism it is. "What if I'm looking for a guard animal."
Is this an argument? lol
Conclusion: More air tight assumptions lead to stronger arguments than less air tight ones
premise: tigers being mammals can be proven true or false, the desired traits in a pet can differ from person to person.
Total nerd behavior but I guess that proves I'm making the right career moves
I'm curious about the when we are allowed to assume things about questions. When do we know to only look at the context of the question and when to assume things about a question?
@NoraElkhyati Only assume what the TEST tells you plainly, even if it is non-sensical. Don't apply what you already know from a science or history class in high school or college. Use the stimulus/text of the test only to pick answers.
It's intentionally confusing and antithetical to everything you've been taught to do on a test in school.
The LSAT is about pure logical reasoning and not about the actual content you are reading about.
114 comments
When we say "An argument is weak because it contains assumptions", what we generally mean is that "An argument is weak because it relies on one or more unreasonable assumptions". Strong arguments can contains some assumptions especially ones inherent in the non-specificity of language, but they are reasonable ones.
And what is a reasonable and acceptable argument to make in daily life, may not work in a legal context where certain values or backgrounds may not be universal.
Excellent! You said it better than I could have.
Reading through some of the comments, I think the easiest way to sum up assumptions on the LSAT is to look at the test (as a whole) as a separate world with separate rules than what we know. In our world, tigers are mammals, we know that. But in LSAT, tigers could conform to any kind of species unless explicitly stated otherwise. Approach each stimulus with suspicion and skepticism.
The more it makes sense -> less criticism. The less it makes sense -> more criticism.
@MyNguyen I view this differently. I think of this in terms of reliability. Tigers are mammals is a very reliable assumption. Aggressiveness makes an animal unsuitable as a pet is less reliable (as shown in the example), but it still makes sense.
these comments really help me understand the lessons so much better
Case in point: Mike Tyson has THREE pet tigers.
This is great, haha
One of my favorite and most beneficial things I took away from the original LR curriculum was that the spectrum was depicted beautifully.
terrible argument (nearly no support) = lots or unreasonable assumptions ------ decent argument (some/weak support) = some assumptions may be questionable ---------- good argument (lots/strong support) = a few, reasonable assumptions --------- perfect argument (valid) = no assumptions
#help
Can anybody check my reasoning?
So if I have everything straight, all arguments follow the basis of a premise + conclusion. The strength of an argument depends on the support of the premise to the conclusion and the strength of the support depends on if the premise were to be true, how much would that make the conclusion true. The strength of support also is determined by how many assumptions are made and how reasonable they are. The more assumptions needed to be made and the less reasonable they are, the weaker the support thus the weaker the argument is.
I just want to correct one thing: According to The Loophole in Logical Reasoning by Ellen Cassidy, you NEVER question the premise. It could be the most ridiculous thing but you have to accept the premise as true. It is the conclusion we question. If the premise does not support the conclusion, then we have to find the assumption.
this just helped me so much thank u
Yesssirrrr
I second this! The loophole gives great advice on all of the little things! I recommend this to any fellow studiers.
I am also using the Loophole. I am wondering how people are using the 7Sage curriculum in time with the Loophole book? By this I mean to ask, are people generally doing one or the other first or is there a hack for which point to be in both modalities, at a certain time that works for people?
Personally, I started with the loophole book and mad it to Chapter 5 before my fee waiver came through, and I signed up for 7Sage. Now I'm feeling like this is a bit of a review with a twist (in the best way).
@adesuwajd hell yeah
I think Joe Exotic could find a lot of assumptions in this argument.
@JamesFoleno Lol!
I think I'm starting to understand how the LSAT likes to structure arguments. When you structure the premises and the conclusion for your argument, you have to measure their strength based on the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. If the premises are super duper true, it makes the argument really strong. But if the premises are reasonably true, they may have merit, but they can be still weakened by criticism. In the tigers argument. tigers are mammals is a way more valid premise than the aggressiveness and ability to harm others premise. Because we know that tigers are mammals, but we can't always be certain aggression and ability to harm are always unsuitable. That is what's key with assumptions. Reasonableness.
This really helped me understand! Thanks for sharing!
What I'm taking away from this is that an argument is made up of a premise + conclusion. The premise often times omits details that may lead to a conclusion because the writer may feel it is unnecessary, thus relying on readers to make assumptions. Assumptions, in general, tend to weaken an argument by setting the scope on more broad terms, even a good assumption can have holes poked in it. Thus, by having these assumptions down as another premise in words, it narrows the scope and sets it as fact (in the context that we assume it is true).
Assumptions on their own are rated on a scale between good and bad assumptions as some can be almost deemed fact in the sense there is very little to no holes to poke while others leave themselves open to alternative ideas and misinterpretation.
Yes, very good. If we forced writers to explicitly state every assumption, it would bury their arguments. There's too much. Strong arguments contain mostly true assumptions. Arguments are vulnerable to the extent that they make unreasonable or false assumptions.
Thank you for this insight! It is helpful to keep in mind that of course it would be ridiculous for there to be a laundry list of contingencies in arguments. It would be too much to follow
This is a little confusing to me because, a couple lessons ago, we were told to not use outside knowledge on this test and to just assume what you are reading is true, but now this is saying to make assumptions and the more true the assumptions are the stronger the argument. But in order to determine that we need to use our outside knowledge so...
Could someone please help or clarify?
Assumptions, in this context, are derived from the argument rather than from preexisting knowledge. In this question, the premise--that not all mammals are suitable to be kept as pets--categorizes tigers as if they are mammals. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, in the context of this argument, that Tigers are mammals. Even though the conditions of this argument reflect real world knowledge, it operates within its own logical framework independent of real world knowledge. In other words, the assumption is derived from the argument itself, NOT from the biological fact that tigers are mammals.
This was well said. I think an additional tidbit of information that is helpful to think about, is that if the question following the stimulus was "which of the following, if true, would most weaken the authors argument?" and there was an option that stated, "Tigers are not mammals" that would easily be the right answer even though in the real world, we know that is not true. Everything on the LSAT is self-contained.
If we are deriving it from knowledge in the question, wouldn't that also lead us to assume that the fact that having an aggressive pet is undesirable as absolutely true, due to this logic? I really like this explanation but would like clarification on this
Why is it okay to use real-world knowledge to verify the reasonableness of assumptions?
so, when evaluating reasonableness of assumptions we can use real world knowledge?
Less reasonable = More vulnerable
More reasonable = Less vulnerable
Oh my God..... I get it. THE REAL WORLD LOGIC DOES NOT MATTER. LSAT logic exists in a vaccuum, of course some real life context and knowledge is used but the test wants you to find the assumptions that support or negate a premise and conclusion.
@jaypring This is what I'm starting to know as the truth about the LSAT as I go through these lessons, but I think I'm still not fully grasping it.
"Tigers are mammals" is a true assumption, making it more reasonable. A couple of lessons ago, J.Y. said that stronger arguments have "fewer and more reasonable" assumptions. Let's call this one Assumption A.
"Aggressiveness and the potential to cause injuries to people are factors that make an animal unsuitable to keep as a pet" is a "reasonable, true in most circumstances but false in some situations" assumption. Let's call this one Assumption B.
So if a question were asking about an assumption that would be necessary for the conclusion that tigers are not suitable as pets, we would want to pick Assumption A. But if Assumption A isn't an option, and we have Assumption B as an option, but there's some option Assumption C which is less reasonable than Assumption B, we would pick Assumption B? Even though it's not perfect but it's still more reasonable than Assumption B?
Is it just all circumstantial? What am I not understanding here?
@everleez I think you are on to the right reasoning. It is just hard to understand which answer makes more sense for the arguement. I try to always stay within the scope of the argument.. if the question type allows.
Is the assumption "Tigers are mammals" more reasonable based off our outside knowledge of this to be true, or is it because it's simply less vulnerable to criticism than the other assumption?
@Derekt19 I was wondering that too, because they literally just said not to use outside knowledge a few lessons ago, now he is saying its a fact
@Derekt19 it's not really outside knowledge in my opinion. seems like the statement "tigers are mammals" is simply a definition. you know that from outside knowledge, but it is also being stipulated in this case.
@Derekt19 The claim that "Tigers are mammals" is less vulnerable to criticism, because there is not much for someone to dispute the claim, other than stating "Tigers are reptiles."
@Derekt19 to add to this, in the assumption that tigers aren't mammals that still doesn't negate the main argument for why mammals shouldn't be kept as a pet. The main point of the conclusion is that they are aggressive and therefore unsuitable, but a tiger is just an example (any mammal can be replaced for because of their aggressive behavior). That is why targeting the main point of aggressiveness weakens the argument more, because it showcases that even violent mammals can still be kept as a pet. So it's not really 'outside knowledge' per-say but more about seeing what part of the conclusion can be used to best weaken the argument (looking at it from a different perspective).
@Derekt19 There are occasions where small assumptions are allowed and even necessary. This one is more to illustrate the idea of reasonability in arguments, I think.
@Derekt19 it's the same in programming. You have an argument, here it's tigers. And you have to define the argument. Here was define tigers = mammals by using the word 'are'. The assumption we're making here is that the definition of tigers being mammals is true.
@MonicaAponte I don't think you can do this because then you would have to apply it to the "potential to cause injury" assumption. And take that as true.
@MonicaAponte to build onto your comment - I think it isn't outside knowledge because the argument is 'telling us' that tigers are mammals.. Which is to say, it is expected of us to assume that tigers are mammals as a result of the presented premise and conclusion.
@Derekt19 It is not that the assumptions themselves are more vulnerable to criticisms, it is that the argument is more vulnerable to criticism due to the assumptions it makes. We typically do not call assumptions vulnerable, we say they make the argument vulnerable
In this case, the assumption that tigers are mammals is a highly reasonable assumption because there is no debate, it is scientifically proven that tigers are mammals. This assumption does not really have too much of an effect on the argument
But, there is debate on whether aggressiveness and potential to cause harm is an unsuitable characteristic for a pet. This assumption can make the argument highly vulnerable.
#help #feedback
It's hard to understand when we should bring real-world logic/common to answer questions. On one hand, I hear not to do this, and on the other hand, I hear that it makes more sense to place a stronger assumption on tigers being mammals vs. tigers being "Aggressiveness and the potential to cause serious injuries to people make an animal unsuitable as a pet."
#help. I'm also very confused about this.
We are told to completely avoid using outside knowledge. I'm fine with that. If the premise says that "tigers are mammals" or "tigers are not mammals" that is fact.
Yet in this lesson, the assumption that "tigers are mammals" is presented as a strong assumptions primarily BECAUSE of our outside knowledge that tigers are mammals.
Is this because the last lesson had the tiger-mammal situation as a premise and this one has the tiger-mammal situation as an assumption? Thus, premises are things that we cannot question/critique but assumptions are things that are open to questioning/critique.
I think youre asking a good question and its always good to be decerning when bringing in outside knowlegde but in this case, the assumption: " tigers are mammals" is heavly implied in the stimulus and it is a commonly held belief that tigers are mammals. The stimulus introduced the "knowledge" and we just made a judgement about it. Where you start to get into trouble with outside knowledge is when it is not directly mentioned in the stimulus (I.e. " we know not many people have tigers as pets"). The later, while true in our universe, is not supported by stimulus/may not be true in the "universe" the LSAT has created for the specific question. Its a hard line to find but, I hope this helps :)
I'm noticing a lot of mention of the context of reasonability and what a reasonable person would perceive, and this is very lawyerly; criminal cases are aimed to prove innocence/guilt beyond a reasonable doubt according to the expectations of a reasonable individual, for instance. It's very encouraging to see a tangible concept related to our profession being brought up so early; it makes it feel all the more real and achievable!
I am still a little confused on the tigers are mammals fact. I thought we were supposed to rely on the stimulus without using any outside information/pre-conceived notions.... in this case it seems like we are.
@Kellbell206 The rule "don't use outside information" applies to conclusions and reasoning, not to basic background facts that any reasonable person would accept without question.
The LSAT has always operated with an implicit assumption that you're a rational, informed adult. "Tigers are mammals" falls into that category, it's not a debatable inference, it's just simply A fact.
Whereas the second assumption about aggressiveness and unsuitability is something we can debate and people may disagree on. They do it in such a slick way you don't even realize. The LSAT does this constantly, they dress up a debatable assumption in very matter-of-fact language so you don't notice the gap.
@jaypring kamala adding hot sauce to her food is precisely the motivation i needed right now so thank u
@jaypring Yes, my funny doppelganger.
I find myself having to deviate from my currrent understanding of terms such as assumption in order to understand them in the LSAT world.
@DCrankshaw agreed this is a whole new vocab
There's an inverse relationship between the vulnerability of an assumption and the strength of an argument.
One thing I am clear about is that we should not MAKE any assumptions based on our prior knowledge on LSA; the information presented could be false, but we are not there to verify the accuracy of the information . However, what I dont understand is the extent to which this information could be false?
I assume ( im not supposed to haha) there could be false statistics, or ideas or beliefs, but what about universally known facts like " Honey is sweet" or " Tigers are mammals".
The tiger argument did not state " tigers are mammals" at the beginning and throughout the lessons, we made that assumption from our own knowledge and we categorized it as the second strongest argument. If we are not to make any assumptions; then, we should not have made that assumptions about Tigers either and categorized the Tiger argument as the weakest because of lack of premises to indicate the tigers are mammals.
I would like to know if there will be information on the test that are in contrast to facts known universally?
@Hanifa I understand what you are saying. There seems to be a gray area of needing to know background info and not needing to know anything at all. I have noticed that this process is a bit intuitive. There are instances where we need to be able to conceptualize and look at details as pieces to a puzzle (assumptions/inferences)... but there are also times where the situation is more black and white, and there is no need to emphasize or dissect layers. There are going to be times where you simply know that something is true, and you will apply your understanding passively. Please remember that we know that tigers are mammals, but are some ppl that do not know.
@Qsimpkins Thanks! Your point it valid. As I have been going through some passages, I am realizing that it is actually intuitive.
I am not sure if I am truly grasping this lesson about assumptions. It's confusing, I understand what assumption is, but in terms of connecting it to the agrument is where I am having a hard time.
The more "air tight" an assumption can be, the stronger the argument. Tigers are (or are not) definitively mammals, therefore there is less to criticize. The less air tight, aggressiveness is not a good trait in pets, the more open to criticism it is. "What if I'm looking for a guard animal."
Is this an argument? lol
Conclusion: More air tight assumptions lead to stronger arguments than less air tight ones
premise: tigers being mammals can be proven true or false, the desired traits in a pet can differ from person to person.
Total nerd behavior but I guess that proves I'm making the right career moves
I'm curious about the when we are allowed to assume things about questions. When do we know to only look at the context of the question and when to assume things about a question?
@NoraElkhyati Only assume what the TEST tells you plainly, even if it is non-sensical. Don't apply what you already know from a science or history class in high school or college. Use the stimulus/text of the test only to pick answers.
It's intentionally confusing and antithetical to everything you've been taught to do on a test in school.
The LSAT is about pure logical reasoning and not about the actual content you are reading about.
@jaypring thanks for clarifying!