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?
@hataie 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.
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.
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?
@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.
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.
@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.
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 :)
@ayoubiii I thought of it more as, a reasonable assumption wont prompt any follow up questions that could break the argument down.
Assumption 1: Tigers are Mammals.
Follow up question: What do you consider a mammal?
Answer: (Insert definition of mammal here).
- Verses -
Assumption 2: Aggressiveness and the potential to cause serious injuries to people make an animal unsuitable as a pet.
Follow up question: what do you consider to be aggressive, what other behaviors are being assumed to indicate a 'potential to cause serious injuries' besides aggressiveness, what makes an animal 'suitable' to be kept as a pet, what do you define as a pet?
Answer: when I get nervous or scared of an animal (a subjective and personal response), loud noises or growling (a subjective and personal response), etc.
Point is that all the questions that COULD be asked, prompt an opinionated or subjective response, while the premise 'Tigers are mammals,' doesn't prompt anything but a widely agreed upon fact.
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.
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.
@Tobykenobi Funny because this was my line of thinking. People own pitbulls and they have plenty of potential to cause harm, but when they are trained they can be great dogs. It is about what you look for in a "pet" and how you define it.
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.
A premise is more accurate because it has reasonable assumptions. Yes, both are true.
For example: The tiger example's premises are more accurate than the trash bin one because it has more reasonable assumptions like that tigers are mammals. The trash bin example makes assumptions such as "Mr. Fat Cat would want to eat the salmon" that are less reasonable, hence the premises are less accurate and more vulnerable to criticism.
@jessicaknight378 I think we can look at assumptions as unstated premises. The more those unstated premises support the conclusion, the stronger the argument is. I think the idea is that we can assume that anything explicitly stated in an LSAT argument is true. But is there anything NOT explicitly stated that the argument is relying on? And that is where the idea of truth or reasonableness comes in. In the real world, if someone were to make the following argument: "Rattlesnakes are dangerous and can kill people. Therefore, not all mammals are suitable as pets", you'd be like, "That assumes rattlesnakes are mammals, which they aren't. If you want to convince me that not all mammals are suitable as pets then you better come up with a better argument for it." So basically the reason why that argument is weak is because it relies on the assumption that rattlesnakes are mammals. The only way that argument holds any weight is if rattlesnakes are mammals and since they aren't then the argument falls apart and the person trying to persuade you that not all mammals are suitable as pets need to find better points to make to support their argument.
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?
@colestartek985 This is how I am looking at it. If assumptions are simple and more likely to be verifiable (like is a tiger a mammal), then it is not dangerous to the argument. But it also doesn't lend a lot of support.
If an assumption is more subjective, and less likely to be "true", then it is and unreasonable assumption, and dangerous to the support of the argument. The more of these, the weaker the argument it.
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
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?
Yes! My guess is that this is because the assumptions are not considered "outside information", but are already pre-supposed in the argument to form a supportive relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion. And since the argument doesn't explicitly state the assumptions, they are still available to be disputed through criticisms (sometimes based on outside knowledge), and thus weaken the support.
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?
I am thinking of it like this- there is either a world where tigers are not mammals, and this argument is wrong, or there is a world where tigers are mammals and the argument is right. It's one or the other. These things cannot simultaneously exist.
However, it is possible that we live in a world where tigers are both suitable and unsuitable pets (in some conditions, to some people, maybe a dangerous animal is okay- maybe they have a custom built enclosure, whatever..)
There's just more room for argument in the suitability question because it's technically an opinion. You could never really "prove" to anyone that a tiger is unsuitable as a pet, because what does unsuitable really mean?
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.
98 comments
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?
@hataie 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.
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.
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?
@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!
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.
@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.
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 :)
@ayoubiii I thought of it more as, a reasonable assumption wont prompt any follow up questions that could break the argument down.
Assumption 1: Tigers are Mammals.
Follow up question: What do you consider a mammal?
Answer: (Insert definition of mammal here).
- Verses -
Assumption 2: Aggressiveness and the potential to cause serious injuries to people make an animal unsuitable as a pet.
Follow up question: what do you consider to be aggressive, what other behaviors are being assumed to indicate a 'potential to cause serious injuries' besides aggressiveness, what makes an animal 'suitable' to be kept as a pet, what do you define as a pet?
Answer: when I get nervous or scared of an animal (a subjective and personal response), loud noises or growling (a subjective and personal response), etc.
Point is that all the questions that COULD be asked, prompt an opinionated or subjective response, while the premise 'Tigers are mammals,' doesn't prompt anything but a widely agreed upon fact.
@AshleighSimmons This is a great explanation!
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?
@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.
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.
@Tobykenobi Funny because this was my line of thinking. People own pitbulls and they have plenty of potential to cause harm, but when they are trained they can be great dogs. It is about what you look for in a "pet" and how you define it.
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.
A premise is more accurate because it has reasonable assumptions. Yes, both are true.
For example: The tiger example's premises are more accurate than the trash bin one because it has more reasonable assumptions like that tigers are mammals. The trash bin example makes assumptions such as "Mr. Fat Cat would want to eat the salmon" that are less reasonable, hence the premises are less accurate and more vulnerable to criticism.
@jessicaknight378 I think we can look at assumptions as unstated premises. The more those unstated premises support the conclusion, the stronger the argument is. I think the idea is that we can assume that anything explicitly stated in an LSAT argument is true. But is there anything NOT explicitly stated that the argument is relying on? And that is where the idea of truth or reasonableness comes in. In the real world, if someone were to make the following argument: "Rattlesnakes are dangerous and can kill people. Therefore, not all mammals are suitable as pets", you'd be like, "That assumes rattlesnakes are mammals, which they aren't. If you want to convince me that not all mammals are suitable as pets then you better come up with a better argument for it." So basically the reason why that argument is weak is because it relies on the assumption that rattlesnakes are mammals. The only way that argument holds any weight is if rattlesnakes are mammals and since they aren't then the argument falls apart and the person trying to persuade you that not all mammals are suitable as pets need to find better points to make to support their argument.
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?
@colestartek985 This is how I am looking at it. If assumptions are simple and more likely to be verifiable (like is a tiger a mammal), then it is not dangerous to the argument. But it also doesn't lend a lot of support.
If an assumption is more subjective, and less likely to be "true", then it is and unreasonable assumption, and dangerous to the support of the argument. The more of these, the weaker the argument it.
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
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?
Yes! My guess is that this is because the assumptions are not considered "outside information", but are already pre-supposed in the argument to form a supportive relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion. And since the argument doesn't explicitly state the assumptions, they are still available to be disputed through criticisms (sometimes based on outside knowledge), and thus weaken the support.
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?
I am thinking of it like this- there is either a world where tigers are not mammals, and this argument is wrong, or there is a world where tigers are mammals and the argument is right. It's one or the other. These things cannot simultaneously exist.
However, it is possible that we live in a world where tigers are both suitable and unsuitable pets (in some conditions, to some people, maybe a dangerous animal is okay- maybe they have a custom built enclosure, whatever..)
There's just more room for argument in the suitability question because it's technically an opinion. You could never really "prove" to anyone that a tiger is unsuitable as a pet, because what does unsuitable really mean?