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
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hi, I got a bit confused. So strong arguments = no assumptions. However, the strength of an argument depends on the reasonableness of the assumption. Can someone please explain this to me.
Quick question, say if we were to get a question similar to the tiger where they say P: Tigers are dangerous animals. C: Mammals do not make good pets. If we were to say that this is an argument with premise and conclusion, will it be deemed right or will they mark us for making assumptions not mentioned explicitly in the text?
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).
Is it possibly to define reasonableness with how standard a fact is? By that logic would it mean that nothing is ever completely reasonable?
#feedback
0
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.
54 comments
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
so does that mean the less assumptions are needed in an argument, the stronger the statement is?
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)
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
Hi, I got a bit confused. So strong arguments = no assumptions. However, the strength of an argument depends on the reasonableness of the assumption. Can someone please explain this to me.
Quick question, say if we were to get a question similar to the tiger where they say P: Tigers are dangerous animals. C: Mammals do not make good pets. If we were to say that this is an argument with premise and conclusion, will it be deemed right or will they mark us for making assumptions not mentioned explicitly in the text?
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).
Is it possibly to define reasonableness with how standard a fact is? By that logic would it mean that nothing is ever completely reasonable?
#feedback