I think that JY makes a very interesting point here. Some assumptions can be said in such a way that at fist glance it doesn't stick out as a strengthening or weakening point. The example that JY gives that while the trash bin toppled over, the owner was taking the dog for a walk, this example shows us that sometimes assumptions can be stated in way where we have to infer information to directly connect back to the support relationship. This is what will make a answer choice difficult to see.
For example: Let's say that I have the argument -- Owner of the Mall: Most people who go to the mall on Hudson Lane are wealthy because all the stores at that mall have expensive items and it is far away, so it requires a lot of gas money to get there.
This is a terrible argument.
Assumption stated clearly: Only wealthy people spend a lot of money on gas and go to stores that have expensive items.
This is an assumption that strengthens the argument sufficiently to reach the conclusion.
Assumption that strengthens stated a little less clearly: To purchase gas to travel long distances, one must have above average income.
This assumption clearly creates a stronger connection between the relationship of paying for gas and having wealth.
Assumption that strengthens but stated subtly: The prices of items in a store tends to correlate with shoppers who can afford those items.
This assumption is strengthening the line of support between expensive items and wealthy people. This assumption states that there is some semblance of connection in that relationship.
I like that you pointed out that a good assumption will strengthen an argument by clearly creating a strong connection between the relata in the relationship, leaving less room for weaker inferences.
@orrjane03132 This was my thought as well. All other assumptions that were hypothesized aside, none of the premises supported that the cat "intentionally" knocked over the bin, and if that is up for debate, then so would his supposed reason for doing so. If say, the cat knocked over the bin while trying to get a toy he was playing with that landed between the bin and the wall? The food comes out and he says, "Whoo hoo!" free food. Same results in the premises, but they no longer support that conclusion
To a degree, when evaluating reasonability, aren't we incorporating personal knowledge in order to evaluate reasonableness? Where's the line between applying background knowledge and not here?
I think "personal knowledge" is the wrong way to think about it. When we evaluate the tiger argument, we are bringing in "commonly accepted as true beliefs" about a general population( tiger). A person with a college education would know that tigers are mammals and we are able to bring in that knowlege because the stimulus heavily implied it is true. We made a judgement on the assumtion the stimuli introduced. But with the trash bin argument, it is localized to the specific attributes of a single cat and making assumptions about the cat's personality. The stimuli is still introducing an assumption but, we cant make a judgement on it becasue a random person would have no idea about the attributes of this particular cat.
All that to say, I think the line to bring in Ouside knowledge is defined by a couple things:
1. does the stimulus introduce an assumption that is relevant to the outside information? (we dont want to introduce information that is not mentioned in the stimulus)
2. Would an average person know the outside information?
I'm not sure if I answered your question completely but, I hope this helps!
Another assumption that is made is that Mr. Fat Cat likes fish. He wouldn’t have a reason to knock over the bin unless he wanted to eat the fish inside; it is possible he hates fish so much he wanted to knock the bin over to get the fish out of there.
@artimus13 I disagree, it needs to be stronger, like "No cat has ever eaten salmon, nor will any cat eat salmon." or something extreme like "If a cat eats salmon, they will die within 24 hours. Mr. Fat died within 24 hours of the incident, and there was nothing else that was in the trash bin, nor the rest of the accessible areas in the house that could have killed Mr. Fat Cat" That is a hilarious example, but you will get some insane premises in some stimuluses.
I was taught for Logical Reasoning, to treat all premises as true. This does not mean not to challenge the strength of the premises to the conclusion, but that they are to be true in the world of the stimulus.
I see a fatal error in the way this discussion is presented. Ping is making assumptions about assumptions, in particular, a common one, where certain outcomes are assumed to be equiprobable. We cannot say, for example, that the assumption that a cat has the strength to knock over a trash can is just as likely to be true as false. It is just something we have no information about. Uncertainty doesn't make it a coin flip. This is the principle of indifference. It works for coins, but not for cats. I agree that the Trash can argument is weaker, but it's not because the assumptions are just as likely to be true as false; it's because it makes an absolute claim from circumstantial premises.
@dh2303 a few of your comments have been super helpful to me over the course of my prep, and you seem to have had a really strong mastery of the lsat since you first starting posting on 7sage!! can i ask if you did prior prep from outside sources, or if you have any other tips to share for increasing one's baseline grasp of materials? thanks in advance. :)
@listening I'm glad my comments have been helpful! I didn't do any prior LSAT prep from outside sources. I am an older student, and come to this with some background a few different fields of study that ended up being useful. Here, that's probability and statistics via epidemiology and research design. I expect that's not particularly helpful, unfortunately, as it doesn't make sense to go and spend a few years studying something only peripherally related. I wish I had more actionable advice I could give you!
I should mention, I have found 7sage to be extraordinarily helpful in providing a method for approaching different types of LSAT questions. I find wrestling with boundary issues to be useful, so most of my comments are quibbles about some specific fine point. But I hope that doesn't come across as disparaging the course. It has been immensely helpful to me, and I recommend engaging deeply in it. Both JY and Kevin Lin are excellent. When there are two explanations, Lin's approach is usually the most helpful for me, but that's probably just because my way of thinking tends to align a little more with him. So, I do actually have actionable advice. Engage deeply with the 7sage material. Wrestle with it where you need to :)
This is a really interesting example argument because it feels very framed as a case. Suspect, evidence, conclusion. In a more complex case like this, you need more information to cover your bases and deduct alternative explanations. But I feel like a few word changes and a few more premises addressing the assumptions could make this a very strong argument.
Could there be an assumption that the dinner was even eaten by the cat or otherwise? No where in the premises say that the fish was eaten besides simply "leftover from dinner," which does not even confirm that it was eaten at all.
Another way the argument is weak is that it doesn't even mention if the contents of the spilled trash bin are missing. In fact, the language implies that it's all there. So, how could a cat have eaten it if its all there?
This was the first assumption that popped into my mind. The argument relied on Mr. Fat Cat licking his paws to clean his face 'after eating,' but it does not state that anything was actually eaten.
I could be completely missing something, but I was under the assumption (haha) that you aren't supposed to use any outside knowledge and take the question at face value. So for the Tiger example, are we supposed to use the "outside knowledge" (fact) that tigers are mammals? Does the part about mammals being aggressive count as acknowledging tigers being mammals? I understand for the Trash Bin argument that it's a made up scenario that we don't have the answers to, but aren't all of the questions on the LSAT "made up"? I guess what I'm trying to ask is what is the line between "outside knowledge" and then making assumptions that aren't there?
This one was hard for me too, but the way I take is that if we need to bring in outside information to confirm or deny an assumption, then it's likely an unreasonable assumption. In the case of Mr. Fat Cat, we'd need to know more about his size and behavior to confirm that he's capable of knocking over the trash bin (besides his name haha) or that his paw licking is a sign of eating the salmon. This outside knowledge isn't provided in the argument, making the assumption unreasonable.
i think a good way to think about it is that you are not asked to draw in outside knowledge, but analyze what possibilities are left on the table by the author. what could happen since it's not explicitly identified in the stimulus.. using the original example - don't know the cat's size as its not explicitly stated, so his size could be anything - from big enough to knock the bin down, or small enough not to. the unknown itself is what weakens the argument
This makes sense but to me where I'm confused is where do we draw the line at outside knowledge? Different people know more about different things so should we just take everything at face value or just go with what we know?
Assessing the size of the cat makes sense because we know the cat was in fact there. I think where smithbaiad's confusion lies (and mine as well) is why we are assuming the cat is the only pet in the house. Are we not assessing the validity of the information presented in the text? Otherwise, there are so many scenarios that could be "assumed", and that's not our focus here on the LSAT.
Wait so I understand that subjective assumptions like the suitability of a tiger as a pet weaken the strength of an argument. BUT I don't understand where the assumptions are coming from in the third argument. Like, do we just assume anything on the spot? Do we come up with things that could weaken the argument in weaken questions and things that strengthen it in strength questions?
Some assumptions are less reasonable than others; thus, they weaken the argument.
Assumptions of " tiger are mammals" and aggressiveness and harm and injury being factors of unsuitability to keep pet are more reasonable and more likely to be true than assuming whether " Mr. Fat Cat is strong enough to knock over the trash bin" or if " there wasnt another pet in the house that could have done this".
I would label it as ' easier to prove' assumptions which are mostly general assumptions rather than ' harder to prove ' assumptions that are linked to more specific assumptions.
I have a question about this. Let's take the Fat Cat example. Let's take the assumption "Fat Cat is strong enough to knock over the trash bin". Now, if Fat Cat is strong enough to knock over the bin, then sure, that lends some credibility to the argument. But only some.
If Fat Cat is not strong enough, it strongly weakens the argument. So what does this make the assumption? Does it mean the argument is overall weakened because the assumption was not included and answered?
123 comments
justice for mr fat cat
mr fat cat is innnocent
#freemrfatcat
I am so happy to see people coming for Mr.Fat Cat's defense.
I think that JY makes a very interesting point here. Some assumptions can be said in such a way that at fist glance it doesn't stick out as a strengthening or weakening point. The example that JY gives that while the trash bin toppled over, the owner was taking the dog for a walk, this example shows us that sometimes assumptions can be stated in way where we have to infer information to directly connect back to the support relationship. This is what will make a answer choice difficult to see.
For example: Let's say that I have the argument -- Owner of the Mall: Most people who go to the mall on Hudson Lane are wealthy because all the stores at that mall have expensive items and it is far away, so it requires a lot of gas money to get there.
This is a terrible argument.
Assumption stated clearly: Only wealthy people spend a lot of money on gas and go to stores that have expensive items.
This is an assumption that strengthens the argument sufficiently to reach the conclusion.
Assumption that strengthens stated a little less clearly: To purchase gas to travel long distances, one must have above average income.
This assumption clearly creates a stronger connection between the relationship of paying for gas and having wealth.
Assumption that strengthens but stated subtly: The prices of items in a store tends to correlate with shoppers who can afford those items.
This assumption is strengthening the line of support between expensive items and wealthy people. This assumption states that there is some semblance of connection in that relationship.
I like that you pointed out that a good assumption will strengthen an argument by clearly creating a strong connection between the relata in the relationship, leaving less room for weaker inferences.
Weak supported arguments allow for arbitrary assumptions to be made.
Does Mr. Fat Cat even like salmon? My cat doesn't! ;)
I also thought of the same assumption!
justice for fatcat. this is defamation at the minimum, a smear campaign.
Justice for Mr. Fat Cat
Surprised this didn’t mention the most vulnerable part of the claim: that the cat “intentionally” knocked over the bin.
@orrjane03132 This was my thought as well. All other assumptions that were hypothesized aside, none of the premises supported that the cat "intentionally" knocked over the bin, and if that is up for debate, then so would his supposed reason for doing so. If say, the cat knocked over the bin while trying to get a toy he was playing with that landed between the bin and the wall? The food comes out and he says, "Whoo hoo!" free food. Same results in the premises, but they no longer support that conclusion
To a degree, when evaluating reasonability, aren't we incorporating personal knowledge in order to evaluate reasonableness? Where's the line between applying background knowledge and not here?
#help
I think "personal knowledge" is the wrong way to think about it. When we evaluate the tiger argument, we are bringing in "commonly accepted as true beliefs" about a general population( tiger). A person with a college education would know that tigers are mammals and we are able to bring in that knowlege because the stimulus heavily implied it is true. We made a judgement on the assumtion the stimuli introduced. But with the trash bin argument, it is localized to the specific attributes of a single cat and making assumptions about the cat's personality. The stimuli is still introducing an assumption but, we cant make a judgement on it becasue a random person would have no idea about the attributes of this particular cat.
All that to say, I think the line to bring in Ouside knowledge is defined by a couple things:
1. does the stimulus introduce an assumption that is relevant to the outside information? (we dont want to introduce information that is not mentioned in the stimulus)
2. Would an average person know the outside information?
I'm not sure if I answered your question completely but, I hope this helps!
would like to know this as well.
Your explanation was helpful for me! Thank you!
Another assumption that is made is that Mr. Fat Cat likes fish. He wouldn’t have a reason to knock over the bin unless he wanted to eat the fish inside; it is possible he hates fish so much he wanted to knock the bin over to get the fish out of there.
@artimus13 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client doesn't even like fish, what possible motive could he have for the murder of this trash bin?
@artimus13 I disagree, it needs to be stronger, like "No cat has ever eaten salmon, nor will any cat eat salmon." or something extreme like "If a cat eats salmon, they will die within 24 hours. Mr. Fat died within 24 hours of the incident, and there was nothing else that was in the trash bin, nor the rest of the accessible areas in the house that could have killed Mr. Fat Cat" That is a hilarious example, but you will get some insane premises in some stimuluses.
I was taught for Logical Reasoning, to treat all premises as true. This does not mean not to challenge the strength of the premises to the conclusion, but that they are to be true in the world of the stimulus.
*"The trash bin in the kitchen is toppled and its contents, including some leftover salmon from dinner, spilled."
Anyone or anything, even an earthquake, could've toppled the trash can.
"Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter, self-satisfied, licking his paw to clean his face the way he does after having eaten."
Cats are known to lick their paws. Does he always do it after he eats? What other times does he do it?
"My hypothesis is that Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party, having intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within."
Weak argument because of so many assumptions that could be true of false.
I see a fatal error in the way this discussion is presented. Ping is making assumptions about assumptions, in particular, a common one, where certain outcomes are assumed to be equiprobable. We cannot say, for example, that the assumption that a cat has the strength to knock over a trash can is just as likely to be true as false. It is just something we have no information about. Uncertainty doesn't make it a coin flip. This is the principle of indifference. It works for coins, but not for cats. I agree that the Trash can argument is weaker, but it's not because the assumptions are just as likely to be true as false; it's because it makes an absolute claim from circumstantial premises.
@dh2303 a few of your comments have been super helpful to me over the course of my prep, and you seem to have had a really strong mastery of the lsat since you first starting posting on 7sage!! can i ask if you did prior prep from outside sources, or if you have any other tips to share for increasing one's baseline grasp of materials? thanks in advance. :)
@listening I'm glad my comments have been helpful! I didn't do any prior LSAT prep from outside sources. I am an older student, and come to this with some background a few different fields of study that ended up being useful. Here, that's probability and statistics via epidemiology and research design. I expect that's not particularly helpful, unfortunately, as it doesn't make sense to go and spend a few years studying something only peripherally related. I wish I had more actionable advice I could give you!
I should mention, I have found 7sage to be extraordinarily helpful in providing a method for approaching different types of LSAT questions. I find wrestling with boundary issues to be useful, so most of my comments are quibbles about some specific fine point. But I hope that doesn't come across as disparaging the course. It has been immensely helpful to me, and I recommend engaging deeply in it. Both JY and Kevin Lin are excellent. When there are two explanations, Lin's approach is usually the most helpful for me, but that's probably just because my way of thinking tends to align a little more with him. So, I do actually have actionable advice. Engage deeply with the 7sage material. Wrestle with it where you need to :)
@dh2303 Thank you so much, I appreciate your perspective and words of advice!
Free my boy Fat Cat :'(
So crazy that this finally made me understand Assumptions. This whole time i've been searching the text for them when I needed to be making them...
@niaxain !!!!!!!
This guy talks like Matpat and I think it really keeps me locked in.
This is a really interesting example argument because it feels very framed as a case. Suspect, evidence, conclusion. In a more complex case like this, you need more information to cover your bases and deduct alternative explanations. But I feel like a few word changes and a few more premises addressing the assumptions could make this a very strong argument.
This breakdown was so helpful
Could there be an assumption that the dinner was even eaten by the cat or otherwise? No where in the premises say that the fish was eaten besides simply "leftover from dinner," which does not even confirm that it was eaten at all.
Another way the argument is weak is that it doesn't even mention if the contents of the spilled trash bin are missing. In fact, the language implies that it's all there. So, how could a cat have eaten it if its all there?
This was the first assumption that popped into my mind. The argument relied on Mr. Fat Cat licking his paws to clean his face 'after eating,' but it does not state that anything was actually eaten.
LOL My assumption was Mr. Fat Cat eats Salmon. Neither of my cats like salmon :)
I could be completely missing something, but I was under the assumption (haha) that you aren't supposed to use any outside knowledge and take the question at face value. So for the Tiger example, are we supposed to use the "outside knowledge" (fact) that tigers are mammals? Does the part about mammals being aggressive count as acknowledging tigers being mammals? I understand for the Trash Bin argument that it's a made up scenario that we don't have the answers to, but aren't all of the questions on the LSAT "made up"? I guess what I'm trying to ask is what is the line between "outside knowledge" and then making assumptions that aren't there?
This one was hard for me too, but the way I take is that if we need to bring in outside information to confirm or deny an assumption, then it's likely an unreasonable assumption. In the case of Mr. Fat Cat, we'd need to know more about his size and behavior to confirm that he's capable of knocking over the trash bin (besides his name haha) or that his paw licking is a sign of eating the salmon. This outside knowledge isn't provided in the argument, making the assumption unreasonable.
i think a good way to think about it is that you are not asked to draw in outside knowledge, but analyze what possibilities are left on the table by the author. what could happen since it's not explicitly identified in the stimulus.. using the original example - don't know the cat's size as its not explicitly stated, so his size could be anything - from big enough to knock the bin down, or small enough not to. the unknown itself is what weakens the argument
This makes sense but to me where I'm confused is where do we draw the line at outside knowledge? Different people know more about different things so should we just take everything at face value or just go with what we know?
Assessing the size of the cat makes sense because we know the cat was in fact there. I think where smithbaiad's confusion lies (and mine as well) is why we are assuming the cat is the only pet in the house. Are we not assessing the validity of the information presented in the text? Otherwise, there are so many scenarios that could be "assumed", and that's not our focus here on the LSAT.
Wait so I understand that subjective assumptions like the suitability of a tiger as a pet weaken the strength of an argument. BUT I don't understand where the assumptions are coming from in the third argument. Like, do we just assume anything on the spot? Do we come up with things that could weaken the argument in weaken questions and things that strengthen it in strength questions?
one of my assumptions was the cat likes to eat salmon
What I learned:
Some assumptions are less reasonable than others; thus, they weaken the argument.
Assumptions of " tiger are mammals" and aggressiveness and harm and injury being factors of unsuitability to keep pet are more reasonable and more likely to be true than assuming whether " Mr. Fat Cat is strong enough to knock over the trash bin" or if " there wasnt another pet in the house that could have done this".
I would label it as ' easier to prove' assumptions which are mostly general assumptions rather than ' harder to prove ' assumptions that are linked to more specific assumptions.
@Hanifa So specific assumptions weaken, while general assumptions strengthen.
I have a question about this. Let's take the Fat Cat example. Let's take the assumption "Fat Cat is strong enough to knock over the trash bin". Now, if Fat Cat is strong enough to knock over the bin, then sure, that lends some credibility to the argument. But only some.
If Fat Cat is not strong enough, it strongly weakens the argument. So what does this make the assumption? Does it mean the argument is overall weakened because the assumption was not included and answered?