I thought that assumptions were the missing link between the premise and the conclusion so wouldn't even a strong argument have at least one assumption ?
assumptions is the name of the game. from some baseline that we view as the gold standard of truth or fact, anything that is less is an assumption and a weakness to an argument.
So if an argument requires many unreasonable assumptions, that means there are many stipulations needed in order for the argument to be true eg. more hoops to jump through. But if the argument either outlines all of the assumptions as premises OR does not need many assumptions to be addressed, then it makes the argument stronger.
What if I were to have many arguments, however they were all reasonable? Would that lie between "Few reasonable assumptions" and "Many unreasonable assumptions". The assumption that tigers are mammals is pretty obvious, if I were to have other assumptions like it are they all necessary?
I wonder if you could make the same argument for relationships between people and I guess so since that was the first lesson, relationships, the more assumptions made in a relationship the weaker it can be whereas less assumptions and more communication and more shared truth, stronger relationship
This may be late, but the previous video is massively help in sufficient and required assumptions.
Determining the strength of assumptions can help easily eliminate tricky answers. Though this info is not presenting the information in question style, you can gleam the ideas from it.
@DNAlex thank you, I am now already at the end of curricullum, and can say it been really nice time, I have now 158 lsat score after 2 months of studying , hope to achive 165-170:)))
@Daisy228 Yes, this is the case, MOST of the time. Because, even if there is only one assumption in an argument, where that assumption lies on the reasonableness spectrum determines the strength of a statement/argument. If the one and only assumption makes you take a huge leap to assume its true(unreasonable), then it makes the argument weaker.
I will say that we as test takers want statements that have relatively fewer assumptions, this is because if we know there is only one assumption, then we can really narrow down our anticipation of the correct answer. If there are 10 assumptions in a single argument, then our job gets a little bit harder.
A most likely true argument: A cupcake is desert. It has a lot of sugar. Yet, people still eat it. An assumption is that it is delicious. This is reasonable and most likely true.
When viewing the actual argument we are supposed to view it in "the world" of the premise. So, when talking about assumptions - are we supposed to rate its reasonableness based off our general world knowledge? (so not just in the arguments world)
@janetchase Just seeing this now. I ended up learning that you can use outside knowledge that is universal. For example the sun is hot or a dog is a living thing. Just things that make sense.
From Ai when I needed to clear some things up:
So it’s a two-step thing:
Dependency test (inside the argument world) → Does the premise-to-conclusion link require this assumption?
Reasonableness test (real-world common knowledge) → Is this assumption one most people would agree is fair?
At what point are assumptions so true we just define them as being fact? For example, in the Tiger argument, we are defining "tigers are mammals" as an assumption when it is a fact tigers are mammals. Do we ever refer to them as being facts or just always call any premise an assumption just on the spectrum of false or true?
Assumptions are not stated in the stimulus -- as defined, they are unstated. Therefore, anything in the stimulus is taken as fact. As the reader, we take what is stated in the premises as facts. It is our job to take every sentence listed in the tiger argument as fact. So, really, assumptions can never really turn into facts because they are unstated. Assumptions are just what the author assumes to be true in order for the argument to follow logically; they don't say it explicitly because, again, they are assuming. Also, premises are not assumptions because they are stated. They are explicit, while assumptions are implicit. That is how I interpreted the videos so far. Hope this makes sense and correct me if I wrong on anything guys!
The point isn't about whether an argument is grounded in fact (Remember the Disney argument). Its more just, "how strong is said argument's reasoning"?
Here with the tiger argument, its two assumptions. A tiger is a mammal, and aggression combined with the tendency to attack people is something undesirable for a pet.
For the LSAT at least, our goal isn't determining whether an assumption/s is incorrect/correct, but whether it/they are weak to any form of criticism, or have any flaws.
I think of it as "does this make sense based on the argument" or thinking "could this inference be made solely based on the argument." or looking for holes in the assumption compared to the argument. with the trash bin one it would be labeled as unreasonable since there are so many factors that could happen besides mr fat cat eating the trash. but with the tiger example its reasonable to state tigers are mammals based on the inferences in the argument.
A reasonable assumption is one that is less likely to be susceptible to doubt. You can't doubt that Tigers are mammals. You can doubt that aggressive animals are not suitable to keep as pets, because some people have guard dogs (as mentioned in the previous lesson). A reasonable assumption is one that is air tight.
So I think a particular way of looking at support from all that has been learnt until here would be to think:
In a world wherein the premise given how reasonable the assumptions are true the conclusion is likely to be true.
In a similar manner a strong argument becomes a set of claims wherein the claim that is the preface, given reasonable assumptions, supports another claim which is the conclusion.
I am not sure if I am understanding but I would like to make sense of it, are you saying: In a world where assumptions are reasonable AND the premises are true = the conclusion is more likely to be true?
I am not sure if I am following the second part completely
If I were to say, "It's raining outside. If I don't dress appropriately, I could get sick. So, I'm going to wear a jacket." This is an argument, but it's not particularly strong. We're not questioning the fact that it's raining, but the assumption that getting wet in the rain will make me sick is up for debate. I mean, maybe I won't get sick, or maybe it's not the rain that's the problem. The fact that I can criticize this assumption makes it a weak link in the argument.
But if I were to say: "It's raining outside. Rainy weather can weaken the immune system, and without proper clothing, I could get sick. So, I'm going to wear a jacket." This argument is stronger because it provides more context for why I might get sick in the rain. The assumption that I could get sick without proper clothing is still there, but it's more convincing because of the additional information. The real strength of this argument comes from the extra premise (Rainy weather can weaken the immune system), which helps to explain the connection between the rain and the potential for illness.
There are other assumptions in the first statement I see. 1. A jacket is appropriate clothing for the rain. 2. You're going outside in the rain. 3. You don't want to get sick.
In the second statement I still the same assumptions. And an additional one, a weakened immune system will make you get sick.
For a stronger argument I would instead say: I am going outside where it is raining. Wearing a jacket in the rain will protect my immune system from getting sick. I don't want to get sick so I am going to wear a jacket.
You could even push this further to clarify the assumption that rainy weather leads to a weakened immune system and sickness:
"I am going outside where it is raining. Rainy weather can weaken my immune system, exposing me to illness. Wearing a jacket in the rain will protect my immune system from getting sick. I don’t want to get sick so I am going to wear a jacket."
You're getting it spot on. Because an A is the maximum score you can get, you can conclude you studied for the test (the extreme assumption would be you winged it.) If you get a B/C, you can assume more or less, but there's enough evidence to prove that you're studying to some degree.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
59 comments
I thought that assumptions were the missing link between the premise and the conclusion so wouldn't even a strong argument have at least one assumption ?
assumptions is the name of the game. from some baseline that we view as the gold standard of truth or fact, anything that is less is an assumption and a weakness to an argument.
But is it based on an assumption we make or just an assumption the author would make based on their conclusion?
Assumptions are the gap of the argument. It's the missing link, the unstated statement in the arugument.
It makes me nervous that the assumptions section is looking pretty logical or basic. I hope I am not missing the real point.
Lol.
There's a grammar mistake on the last slide "on" instead of "one" another.
So if an argument requires many unreasonable assumptions, that means there are many stipulations needed in order for the argument to be true eg. more hoops to jump through. But if the argument either outlines all of the assumptions as premises OR does not need many assumptions to be addressed, then it makes the argument stronger.
So support determines if assumptions are present? This is why not every question is an assumption question?
What if I were to have many arguments, however they were all reasonable? Would that lie between "Few reasonable assumptions" and "Many unreasonable assumptions". The assumption that tigers are mammals is pretty obvious, if I were to have other assumptions like it are they all necessary?
so if an assumption becomes explicitly stated, it becomes an outright claim?
I wonder if you could make the same argument for relationships between people and I guess so since that was the first lesson, relationships, the more assumptions made in a relationship the weaker it can be whereas less assumptions and more communication and more shared truth, stronger relationship
for now this info is not helpful in real life drills, hopefully there are more in upcoming classes
@Lidiia
This may be late, but the previous video is massively help in sufficient and required assumptions.
Determining the strength of assumptions can help easily eliminate tricky answers. Though this info is not presenting the information in question style, you can gleam the ideas from it.
@DNAlex thank you, I am now already at the end of curricullum, and can say it been really nice time, I have now 158 lsat score after 2 months of studying , hope to achive 165-170:)))
so does that mean the less assumptions are needed in an argument, the stronger the statement is?
@Daisy228 Yes, this is the case, MOST of the time. Because, even if there is only one assumption in an argument, where that assumption lies on the reasonableness spectrum determines the strength of a statement/argument. If the one and only assumption makes you take a huge leap to assume its true(unreasonable), then it makes the argument weaker.
I will say that we as test takers want statements that have relatively fewer assumptions, this is because if we know there is only one assumption, then we can really narrow down our anticipation of the correct answer. If there are 10 assumptions in a single argument, then our job gets a little bit harder.
@VernonLPainter Ah!! I get it. makes a lot more sense.
Thank you!
A most likely true argument: A cupcake is desert. It has a lot of sugar. Yet, people still eat it. An assumption is that it is delicious. This is reasonable and most likely true.
When viewing the actual argument we are supposed to view it in "the world" of the premise. So, when talking about assumptions - are we supposed to rate its reasonableness based off our general world knowledge? (so not just in the arguments world)
@Benjaminrobert commenting to know the answer to your question
@janetchase Just seeing this now. I ended up learning that you can use outside knowledge that is universal. For example the sun is hot or a dog is a living thing. Just things that make sense.
From Ai when I needed to clear some things up:
So it’s a two-step thing:
Dependency test (inside the argument world) → Does the premise-to-conclusion link require this assumption?
Reasonableness test (real-world common knowledge) → Is this assumption one most people would agree is fair?
Last sentence of review has typo.
The more assumption will make the weaker our argument and vice versa
At what point are assumptions so true we just define them as being fact? For example, in the Tiger argument, we are defining "tigers are mammals" as an assumption when it is a fact tigers are mammals. Do we ever refer to them as being facts or just always call any premise an assumption just on the spectrum of false or true?
Assumptions are not stated in the stimulus -- as defined, they are unstated. Therefore, anything in the stimulus is taken as fact. As the reader, we take what is stated in the premises as facts. It is our job to take every sentence listed in the tiger argument as fact. So, really, assumptions can never really turn into facts because they are unstated. Assumptions are just what the author assumes to be true in order for the argument to follow logically; they don't say it explicitly because, again, they are assuming. Also, premises are not assumptions because they are stated. They are explicit, while assumptions are implicit. That is how I interpreted the videos so far. Hope this makes sense and correct me if I wrong on anything guys!
The point isn't about whether an argument is grounded in fact (Remember the Disney argument). Its more just, "how strong is said argument's reasoning"?
Here with the tiger argument, its two assumptions. A tiger is a mammal, and aggression combined with the tendency to attack people is something undesirable for a pet.
For the LSAT at least, our goal isn't determining whether an assumption/s is incorrect/correct, but whether it/they are weak to any form of criticism, or have any flaws.
Where would deductive and inductive arguments lie on this spectrum of support?
What makes an assumption 'reasonable'? I am struggling with the definition and criteria of the term reasonable
I think of it as "does this make sense based on the argument" or thinking "could this inference be made solely based on the argument." or looking for holes in the assumption compared to the argument. with the trash bin one it would be labeled as unreasonable since there are so many factors that could happen besides mr fat cat eating the trash. but with the tiger example its reasonable to state tigers are mammals based on the inferences in the argument.
A reasonable assumption is one that is less likely to be susceptible to doubt. You can't doubt that Tigers are mammals. You can doubt that aggressive animals are not suitable to keep as pets, because some people have guard dogs (as mentioned in the previous lesson). A reasonable assumption is one that is air tight.
like pieces of support, I also lie on the spectrum
could assumptions be considered reasonable doubt
So I think a particular way of looking at support from all that has been learnt until here would be to think:
In a world wherein the premise given how reasonable the assumptions are true the conclusion is likely to be true.
In a similar manner a strong argument becomes a set of claims wherein the claim that is the preface, given reasonable assumptions, supports another claim which is the conclusion.
Does this make sense?
I am not sure if I am understanding but I would like to make sense of it, are you saying: In a world where assumptions are reasonable AND the premises are true = the conclusion is more likely to be true?
I am not sure if I am following the second part completely
So, if I’m understanding this right…
If I were to say, "It's raining outside. If I don't dress appropriately, I could get sick. So, I'm going to wear a jacket." This is an argument, but it's not particularly strong. We're not questioning the fact that it's raining, but the assumption that getting wet in the rain will make me sick is up for debate. I mean, maybe I won't get sick, or maybe it's not the rain that's the problem. The fact that I can criticize this assumption makes it a weak link in the argument.
But if I were to say: "It's raining outside. Rainy weather can weaken the immune system, and without proper clothing, I could get sick. So, I'm going to wear a jacket." This argument is stronger because it provides more context for why I might get sick in the rain. The assumption that I could get sick without proper clothing is still there, but it's more convincing because of the additional information. The real strength of this argument comes from the extra premise (Rainy weather can weaken the immune system), which helps to explain the connection between the rain and the potential for illness.
There are other assumptions in the first statement I see. 1. A jacket is appropriate clothing for the rain. 2. You're going outside in the rain. 3. You don't want to get sick.
In the second statement I still the same assumptions. And an additional one, a weakened immune system will make you get sick.
For a stronger argument I would instead say: I am going outside where it is raining. Wearing a jacket in the rain will protect my immune system from getting sick. I don't want to get sick so I am going to wear a jacket.
You could even push this further to clarify the assumption that rainy weather leads to a weakened immune system and sickness:
"I am going outside where it is raining. Rainy weather can weaken my immune system, exposing me to illness. Wearing a jacket in the rain will protect my immune system from getting sick. I don’t want to get sick so I am going to wear a jacket."
ok I have an example argument trying to see if im getting this:
So I take a test
if I get an A: there is valid reason to conclude I studied for the test
if I get an F: its unreasonable/unsupported to conclude I studied as my grade reflects
but if I get a B or C: depending on points(how strong the reason is); shows how and where on the frame the grade would reflect the conclusion
am I getting this right?
You're getting it spot on. Because an A is the maximum score you can get, you can conclude you studied for the test (the extreme assumption would be you winged it.) If you get a B/C, you can assume more or less, but there's enough evidence to prove that you're studying to some degree.