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.
I get that the argument "Tigers are mammals" is a stronger assumption than the assumption that talks about aggressiveness. However, I thought that we weren't allowed to bring in outside information? What if we know nothing about what a Tiger or mammal is? How do we determine which one is stronger? Same thing with the aggressive assumption - wouldn't this be considered us bringing in outside knowledge to determine which assumption is more reasonable than the other? I hope this makes sense.
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.
I'm a bit confused by the assumptions topic. If on the LSAT we are asked to make an assumption why would that tigers are mammals more reasonable? If it is true tigers are mammals wouldn’t that make the statement a fact? When in fact if we are asked to make assumptions wouldn’t the second one make more sense as it is an assumption we are being asked to make?
When tackling assumption questions on the LSAT, do they want a stronger or weaker argument? Or will it just depend on what the question is asking at that moment?
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!
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.
77 comments
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.
I get that the argument "Tigers are mammals" is a stronger assumption than the assumption that talks about aggressiveness. However, I thought that we weren't allowed to bring in outside information? What if we know nothing about what a Tiger or mammal is? How do we determine which one is stronger? Same thing with the aggressive assumption - wouldn't this be considered us bringing in outside knowledge to determine which assumption is more reasonable than the other? I hope this makes sense.
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.
I'm a bit confused by the assumptions topic. If on the LSAT we are asked to make an assumption why would that tigers are mammals more reasonable? If it is true tigers are mammals wouldn’t that make the statement a fact? When in fact if we are asked to make assumptions wouldn’t the second one make more sense as it is an assumption we are being asked to make?
How would the argument change if the second premise said "make a MAMMAL unsuitable to be a pet?"
Would the entire argument become stronger because of the specificity, or would it become weaker on the account of it doesn't include all animals.
Alternatively, would there be no change at all?
these comments really help me understand the lessons so much better
When tackling assumption questions on the LSAT, do they want a stronger or weaker argument? Or will it just depend on what the question is asking at that moment?
Case in point: Mike Tyson has THREE pet tigers.