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'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?
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.
Very interesting... I didn't think about it from this lens: the less reasonable/more debatable an assumption is, the more contingent the argument is on that assumption. Thanks!
I think I’m grasping this lesson, to be put into simpler words, the weaker the assumption, the more vulnerable it is to affective criticism. Just saying “criticism” doesn’t seem to match the lesson, since either way an sssumption opens the door to criticism, it’s just the validity or not. In terms of the law, would the assumption made allow deaths opposing side to open the gate to reasonable doubt or would their argument be crazy?
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.
Hey! I was a little confused on the last part on the vulnerable to criticism part when dealing with an assumptions is someone able to give more help to understand.
Like for the tigers is it less vulnerable to criticism because of what, that they are mammals are is it because some pets are good to have because they are aggressive? any tips/ help for understanding would be good right now :)
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?
From the module where they asked to rank the strength of the arguments, the assumption that aggressiveness and potential to cause injuries were reasons not to keep a pet struck me as inherently weak. They use the example of guard dogs, but in many cases people actually even use TIGERS for those very reasons to keep as pets. It really makes the entire argument fall apart.
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.
I'm a little confused about the strength of an argument. Earlier, we discussed how strength is based on premise accuracy, but now he is saying that strength is dependent on the reasonableness of an argument's assumptions. Is both true? At the beginning of the course, he said to throw out any prior knowledge and take what he is saying as absoluate, but both things are said.
so pretty much the more outlandish the assumption the easier the assumption is to shut down and the more of a threat to the argument that assumption then is?
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...
Not all assumptions are created equal. Some assumptions are less equal than others. The more reasonable an assumption is, it's less vulnerable to attack. The less reasonable an assumption is, the greater the opportunity to attack it.
Evaluate assumptions based on their reasonableness. Identify the weakest assumption and attack that. Conversely, make sure all your assumptions have a high degree of reasonableness.
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
Wait, when evaluating assumptions, we see how they strengthen the support, but are we considering the truth of the statements when evaluating the reasonableness of the argument?
The more reasonable an assumption is = the stronger the assumption is. A more reasonable assumption is one that is less vulnerable to criticism. The less reasonable an assumption is = the weaker an assumption. A weaker assumption is more vulnerable to criticism.
so basically the more reasonable an assumption = less room for error/criticism The less reasonable an assumption = more room for error/criticism. Reasonability is determined by the strength of the support relative to the argument. Is this right?
How do we state it is true if it is an assumption? Obviously we all know tigers are mammals but in this argument we are pretending we don't and it is an assumption, right? Is it stronger because it is just less based on opinion like the second one?
I just wanted to make this clear. We do not bring outside information in when judging whether the premises support the conclusion, but we can use assumptions and judge whether the argument is vulnerable to criticism?
I get that some assumptions are more reasonable than others based on the likelihood of being true, but I thought we are not supposed to bring our "outside knowledge" into these passages?
So arguments are not equal and the more reasonable the argument the less it is subject to criticism the less reasonable an argument is the more it is subject to criticism.
So essentially if you have a reasonable assumption then it is less likely subjected to criticism. In comparison to a less reasonable assumption that is more likely subjected to criticism.
2
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.
87 comments
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'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?
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.
Very interesting... I didn't think about it from this lens: the less reasonable/more debatable an assumption is, the more contingent the argument is on that assumption. Thanks!
I think I’m grasping this lesson, to be put into simpler words, the weaker the assumption, the more vulnerable it is to affective criticism. Just saying “criticism” doesn’t seem to match the lesson, since either way an sssumption opens the door to criticism, it’s just the validity or not. In terms of the law, would the assumption made allow deaths opposing side to open the gate to reasonable doubt or would their argument be crazy?
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.
Hey! I was a little confused on the last part on the vulnerable to criticism part when dealing with an assumptions is someone able to give more help to understand.
Like for the tigers is it less vulnerable to criticism because of what, that they are mammals are is it because some pets are good to have because they are aggressive? any tips/ help for understanding would be good right now :)
assumption on left is reasonable because its truer.
not all assumptions are equal
why not DRILLS can be that easy like this classes
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?
From the module where they asked to rank the strength of the arguments, the assumption that aggressiveness and potential to cause injuries were reasons not to keep a pet struck me as inherently weak. They use the example of guard dogs, but in many cases people actually even use TIGERS for those very reasons to keep as pets. It really makes the entire argument fall apart.
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.
I'm a little confused about the strength of an argument. Earlier, we discussed how strength is based on premise accuracy, but now he is saying that strength is dependent on the reasonableness of an argument's assumptions. Is both true? At the beginning of the course, he said to throw out any prior knowledge and take what he is saying as absoluate, but both things are said.
so pretty much the more outlandish the assumption the easier the assumption is to shut down and the more of a threat to the argument that assumption then is?
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?
Not all assumptions are created equal. Some assumptions are less equal than others. The more reasonable an assumption is, it's less vulnerable to attack. The less reasonable an assumption is, the greater the opportunity to attack it.
Evaluate assumptions based on their reasonableness. Identify the weakest assumption and attack that. Conversely, make sure all your assumptions have a high degree of reasonableness.
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
Wait, when evaluating assumptions, we see how they strengthen the support, but are we considering the truth of the statements when evaluating the reasonableness of the argument?
The more reasonable an assumption is = the stronger the assumption is. A more reasonable assumption is one that is less vulnerable to criticism. The less reasonable an assumption is = the weaker an assumption. A weaker assumption is more vulnerable to criticism.
so basically the more reasonable an assumption = less room for error/criticism The less reasonable an assumption = more room for error/criticism. Reasonability is determined by the strength of the support relative to the argument. Is this right?
How do we state it is true if it is an assumption? Obviously we all know tigers are mammals but in this argument we are pretending we don't and it is an assumption, right? Is it stronger because it is just less based on opinion like the second one?
I just wanted to make this clear. We do not bring outside information in when judging whether the premises support the conclusion, but we can use assumptions and judge whether the argument is vulnerable to criticism?
I get that some assumptions are more reasonable than others based on the likelihood of being true, but I thought we are not supposed to bring our "outside knowledge" into these passages?
So arguments are not equal and the more reasonable the argument the less it is subject to criticism the less reasonable an argument is the more it is subject to criticism.
So essentially if you have a reasonable assumption then it is less likely subjected to criticism. In comparison to a less reasonable assumption that is more likely subjected to criticism.