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).
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?
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.
18
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!
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.
46 comments
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
if tigers being mammals can be construed as assumptions, then it becomes a very unlikely scenario where you have a "true" true 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?
#help
if there is a statement that says X is true because of Y, but there are no assumptions... does that mean the statement is not an argument?
See first sentence of
PT 31 S3 LR Q26:
"The media now devote more coverage to crime than"
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.