One way to think about this concept is that whenever you say:
"I am assuming that..." then you are really saying *"My argument is vulnerable to criticism (weak) because..."
OR*
"This argument is assuming that..." then you are really saying "This argument is vulnerable to criticism (weak) because..."
Now for foresight:
When we do weakening and strengthening question for logical reasoning, what we are doing is that we are bringing the assumption to the forefront, and given the task of strengthen, we can either make the assumption less relevant to the argument (indirectly support) or even allow the assumption bolster the argument. The way we do that comes from how the assumption is worded in the answer choice. Therefore, on strengthening questions, we are use a constructed assumption as a premise to increase the likelihood of the arguments conclusion. Alternatively, We can also use the assumption to make the conclusion less likely to be true. Given that a assumption is made and an answer choice words it in a specific manner that works against the argument, then we weakened the argument, respectively.
Well put about strengthing questions! It kind of makes them less daunting because the question you need to ask yourself boils down to, what have I consciously or subconsciously assumed after trying to understand that 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.
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.
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?
Just for clarification... Arguments can be anywhere on the spectrum from weak to strong based on the reasonability of their support. We have been taught not to question the premises, though. Could someone please help me define the difference between questioning reasonability of support and questioning the premise itself.
I think some further lessons answered my question. Assumptions are the "unspokens" that are like reading between the lines of the premises. We don't use them to question what is in the premises, but what could possibly be "between" them and the conclusion that could either strengthen or weaken the argument.
How do you distinguish between most likely true vs. probably true? And does deciding a statement as strong inference vs weak inference lead to the difference between choosing a right answer or a wrong answer?
I think when something is most likely true there is little to no chance of questioning it whereas when it is probably true there is room to question and challenge your answer.
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.
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.
@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.
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."
It seems to me like the figure in the article should actually be a 3 dimensional graph, rather than 1 dimensional line. An argument could conceivably have many reasonable assumptions, or few unreasonable assumptions. There are three axis for measuring support then: support axis (valid inference or could be false) number of assumptions (few or many) and reasonableness of assumptions (reasonable or unreasonable).
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 ?
@TimothyBaerwalde a strong argument wouldn't have any missing links; the Disney example has only 2 definite ways of getting the pass, and the argument says that if you don't participate in 1 activity, then it must be the other. There isn't really an assumption, as it is just 2 choices that you have.
If we are looking at these questions in the context of the world they exist in, how are we to determine the spectrum of reasonableness of the assumptions? Am I overthinking this?
65 comments
One way to think about this concept is that whenever you say:
"I am assuming that..." then you are really saying *"My argument is vulnerable to criticism (weak) because..."
OR*
"This argument is assuming that..." then you are really saying "This argument is vulnerable to criticism (weak) because..."
Now for foresight:
When we do weakening and strengthening question for logical reasoning, what we are doing is that we are bringing the assumption to the forefront, and given the task of strengthen, we can either make the assumption less relevant to the argument (indirectly support) or even allow the assumption bolster the argument. The way we do that comes from how the assumption is worded in the answer choice. Therefore, on strengthening questions, we are use a constructed assumption as a premise to increase the likelihood of the arguments conclusion. Alternatively, We can also use the assumption to make the conclusion less likely to be true. Given that a assumption is made and an answer choice words it in a specific manner that works against the argument, then we weakened the argument, respectively.
Well put about strengthing questions! It kind of makes them less daunting because the question you need to ask yourself boils down to, what have I consciously or subconsciously assumed after trying to understand that 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.
like pieces of support, I also lie on the spectrum
It makes me nervous that the assumptions section is looking pretty logical or basic. I hope I am not missing the real point.
Lol.
Assumptions are the gap of the argument. It's the missing link, the unstated statement in the arugument.
There's a grammar mistake on the last slide "on" instead of "one" another.
Last sentence of review has typo.
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.
so if an assumption becomes explicitly stated, it becomes an outright claim?
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?
The more assumption will make the weaker our argument and vice versa
Just for clarification... Arguments can be anywhere on the spectrum from weak to strong based on the reasonability of their support. We have been taught not to question the premises, though. Could someone please help me define the difference between questioning reasonability of support and questioning the premise itself.
I LOVE THIS haha Its going into my notes!
I think some further lessons answered my question. Assumptions are the "unspokens" that are like reading between the lines of the premises. We don't use them to question what is in the premises, but what could possibly be "between" them and the conclusion that could either strengthen or weaken the argument.
How do you distinguish between most likely true vs. probably true? And does deciding a statement as strong inference vs weak inference lead to the difference between choosing a right answer or a wrong answer?
I think when something is most likely true there is little to no chance of questioning it whereas when it is probably true there is room to question and challenge your answer.
so, the more you need to assume the weaker your argument is? like Disney you can only do two things for the pass vs we assume a lot about the tiger
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.
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.
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.
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."
It seems to me like the figure in the article should actually be a 3 dimensional graph, rather than 1 dimensional line. An argument could conceivably have many reasonable assumptions, or few unreasonable assumptions. There are three axis for measuring support then: support axis (valid inference or could be false) number of assumptions (few or many) and reasonableness of assumptions (reasonable or unreasonable).
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 ?
@TimothyBaerwalde a strong argument wouldn't have any missing links; the Disney example has only 2 definite ways of getting the pass, and the argument says that if you don't participate in 1 activity, then it must be the other. There isn't really an assumption, as it is just 2 choices that you have.
The stronger the premises support the conclusion, the fewer assumptions are needed.
In Reversed:
The weaker the premises support the conclusion, the more assumptions are needed.
Can someone provide an argument that is not open to assumptions? I am having trouble understanding :/
If we are looking at these questions in the context of the world they exist in, how are we to determine the spectrum of reasonableness of the assumptions? Am I overthinking this?