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.
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.
@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?
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.
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!
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
61 comments
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
what is a def for reasonable
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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