I don't understand why my study guide keeps skipping over the skill builder sections? I didn't even realize it's been doing that and its messing with my progress. Is this happening for anyone else?
If not, I wish the assumptions here were explicitly written out, rather than a response to the assumptions. Those are two different things.
In the tigers argument the assumption was "tigers are mammals".
What are the assumptions here?
"I'd like to know whether Mr. Fat Cat has misbehaved in a similar fashion previously." isn't an assumption, its a question/response to an assumption, but what are the assumptions?
Mr. Fat Cat licks his paws after eating and he's licking his paw now, so he might have just eaten the spilled salmon.
Mr. Fat Cat is the only one that could have done this.
This is closer to my understanding of assumptions. I'm confused by the questions I'm seeing in the comments.
I find it interesting how in this module and in the previous one assumptions are navigated by this course material. Ultimately, it seems that some extent outside knowledge has to be considered, at least in a limited way. Basically, we need to assess the assumptions of an argument, based on knowledge a reasonable person would have. And effectively, there is an element of arbitrariness in how the test navigates this issue. Would a reasonable person know a tiger is a mammal? How reasonable is it to assume that Mr. Fat Cat that is just there and without any further context spilled a container including salmon? This is part of what we are navigating in this test.
Immediate Assumptions that came to mind in the following order:
Does Mr.Fat Cat only lick his paw after eating?
Does Mr. Fat Cat eat salmon?
If so; Was the salmon the only food in the house?
How does the word 'intentionally' affect the passage? Could he have unintentionally knocked it over and THEN eaten?
Possible edited prompt:
Detective: The trash bin in the kitchen is toppled, and its contents, including some leftover salmon from dinner, are spilled. Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter, self-satisfied, licking his paw to clean his face the way he does only after having eaten food. The leftover salmon was the only food available to Mr. Fat Cat. I hypothesize that Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party, having intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within.
Any assumptions I missed? If he 100% only licks his paw after eating, and salmon was the only thing to eat, then this argument is definitely true.
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?
So if an assumption is arbitrary, should I bump it up to a premise to make it stronger? And why would I do that. Wouldn't it just make it a weak argument?
@LaurinU This is where I'm struggling as well. When looking at LSAT questions, the stimulus complex scenarios that force you have some understanding on what is going on so you CAN assume something. I'd def like to hear someone's perspective on this to better understand these 'assumptions'
Can we use statistics or general information to rule out arguments? It might be easier to call assumptions about how many cats or dogs are in the house arbitrary. But what about the assumption that there was not an earthquake? That seems less arbitrary, nevertheless still arbitrary.
@JamesFoleno We literally have the same mind hahaha I commented something about Joe Exotic 2 lessons ago and was just about to comment that another assumption could be whether there was an earthquake jajaja. Happy studying!
@JamesFoleno I came to the comments searching for the answer to this as well! Did you or @petvma figure out if using general information to rule out arguments is recommended to call out assumptions?
@PoemaMekhitarian My sense is that questions will be written so you have all the information you need to rule out the wrong answers without needing general information. However, I think general information is most useful for questions on dense topics that can seem intimidating without any background knowledge (e.g., econ, chem, etc) for quick reading comprehension.
But how do you determine if it's true or not, who is making that decision? I understand the assumptions and what makes them true or false, or supports them being true or false. If it is possible to be true or false, does that simply make it count as false or unsupportive? If so - how can there be a scale for the assumptions themselves? it seems they are binary. I understand the argument itself can scale, but how can the assumptions?
@EricPreneta I had this same thought, I'm trying to work it out too. Here's how I'm thinking about it:
One of the assumptions in this argument is that there are no other animals that could've knocked over the trash can. That is just as likely to be true as it is false because we have no idea about any other possible animalian culprits.
If there was another premise that said there has never been another animal inside the home except for Mr. Fat Cat, then this assumption would be much more likely to be true. Not 100% likely to be true because maybe it's possible the window was open and a bird flew in and knocked over the trash can, but very likely.
On the other hand, consider an additional premise saying that Big Dog was in the house at the time of the crime. Then, the assumption that no other animal could've knocked over the trash can becomes less likely. Not 100% unlikely, but less likely to be true.
In these hypotheticals, the assumption does lie somewhere on a spectrum. The assumption that no other animal could've knocked over the trash can is not 100% true or 100% false.
Sorry for the essay, it's helpful to type out thoughts. Hopefully this helps, and let me know your thoughts!
So what I understand is that the more reasonable the assumption, the weaker the argument, the more arbitrary the assumption, the stronger. I realize there are other factors, but I feel this is a good base to work with, then you follow-up with the same as the Tiger argument, the Mammal assumption and the aggressiveness assumption, where they are more likely to be true than false.
For me, I think a good takeaway for strengthen/weaken claims is that weak arguments can be strengthened if their assumptions are promoted to the status of premises.
In this case of the Mr. Fat Cat example, if we grant that there were no other animals in the house, that he is strong enough to push the trash can over, and that he only licks his paws after eating, as premises rather than assumptions, then we have a much stronger argument.
@LaneyWilliams yes, i came to the same exact conclusion as well. Had these premises been present when initially evaluating the 3 arguments, this certainly would be stronger (potentially surpassing the tiger argument, if we provide enough information through premises that were once assumptions). however, because these assumptions remain assumptions when viewing this argument as it was originally presented, this is a weaker argument than the tiger argument. great insight!
So we had an assumption that was "tangible" to real life, like all cats generally like knocking things over, etc. this would've been a stronger argument.
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.
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.
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?
Seems like the more fanciful and mind-bending assumptions could just be chalked up to being weak. However, the nuance associated with "what is reasonable" has yet been explained or expanded on. My issue is where does the buck stop when applying what is "reasonable" i.e. what your "average" person coming off the street would say. All notwithstanding most people off the street can't identify countries in the Middle East.
One thing I don't quite understand: why do we not distinguish between the strength of assumptions based on how easy they would be to prove?
In this example, you could ask the owner if he has any other pets, making the assumption that "there wasn't another pet in the house that could have done this" provable. On the other hand, you can't really prove the assumption about Mr. Fat Cat's strength. Maybe he was very motivated and muscled the strength like the mothers do when they lift a car to rescue their baby. Maybe he wouldn't have the strength but managed to aim his body as a cannonball in just the right position, using the momentum?
In short, is there a spectrum of assumption reasonableness based on effort it would take to prove its truth?
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 :)
116 comments
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...
This guy talks like Matpat and I think it really keeps me locked in.
I don't understand why my study guide keeps skipping over the skill builder sections? I didn't even realize it's been doing that and its messing with my progress. Is this happening for anyone else?
@Jaeann Yes it happened to me too. I am just adding an hour of these lessons to my drills and other lessons each day.
Are assumptions questions?
If not, I wish the assumptions here were explicitly written out, rather than a response to the assumptions. Those are two different things.
In the tigers argument the assumption was "tigers are mammals".
What are the assumptions here?
"I'd like to know whether Mr. Fat Cat has misbehaved in a similar fashion previously." isn't an assumption, its a question/response to an assumption, but what are the assumptions?
Mr. Fat Cat licks his paws after eating and he's licking his paw now, so he might have just eaten the spilled salmon.
Mr. Fat Cat is the only one that could have done this.
This is closer to my understanding of assumptions. I'm confused by the questions I'm seeing in the comments.
What am I missing?
I find it interesting how in this module and in the previous one assumptions are navigated by this course material. Ultimately, it seems that some extent outside knowledge has to be considered, at least in a limited way. Basically, we need to assess the assumptions of an argument, based on knowledge a reasonable person would have. And effectively, there is an element of arbitrariness in how the test navigates this issue. Would a reasonable person know a tiger is a mammal? How reasonable is it to assume that Mr. Fat Cat that is just there and without any further context spilled a container including salmon? This is part of what we are navigating in this test.
Immediate Assumptions that came to mind in the following order:
Does Mr.Fat Cat only lick his paw after eating?
Does Mr. Fat Cat eat salmon?
If so; Was the salmon the only food in the house?
How does the word 'intentionally' affect the passage? Could he have unintentionally knocked it over and THEN eaten?
Possible edited prompt:
Detective: The trash bin in the kitchen is toppled, and its contents, including some leftover salmon from dinner, are spilled. Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter, self-satisfied, licking his paw to clean his face the way he does only after having eaten food. The leftover salmon was the only food available to Mr. Fat Cat. I hypothesize that Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party, having
intentionallyknocked over the bin to access the fish within.Any assumptions I missed? If he 100% only licks his paw after eating, and salmon was the only thing to eat, then this argument is definitely true.
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?
So if an assumption is arbitrary, should I bump it up to a premise to make it stronger? And why would I do that. Wouldn't it just make it a weak argument?
Do you just pull assumptions out of thin air? It feels very subjective
@LaurinU This is where I'm struggling as well. When looking at LSAT questions, the stimulus complex scenarios that force you have some understanding on what is going on so you CAN assume something. I'd def like to hear someone's perspective on this to better understand these 'assumptions'
justice for fatcat. this is defamation at the minimum, a smear campaign.
Can we use statistics or general information to rule out arguments? It might be easier to call assumptions about how many cats or dogs are in the house arbitrary. But what about the assumption that there was not an earthquake? That seems less arbitrary, nevertheless still arbitrary.
@JamesFoleno We literally have the same mind hahaha I commented something about Joe Exotic 2 lessons ago and was just about to comment that another assumption could be whether there was an earthquake jajaja. Happy studying!
@petvma Happy to hear that someone thinks this way too!! I'll wait for you to comment next time before I steal your comment 😂
@JamesFoleno I came to the comments searching for the answer to this as well! Did you or @petvma figure out if using general information to rule out arguments is recommended to call out assumptions?
@PoemaMekhitarian My sense is that questions will be written so you have all the information you need to rule out the wrong answers without needing general information. However, I think general information is most useful for questions on dense topics that can seem intimidating without any background knowledge (e.g., econ, chem, etc) for quick reading comprehension.
one of my assumptions was the cat likes to eat salmon
But how do you determine if it's true or not, who is making that decision? I understand the assumptions and what makes them true or false, or supports them being true or false. If it is possible to be true or false, does that simply make it count as false or unsupportive? If so - how can there be a scale for the assumptions themselves? it seems they are binary. I understand the argument itself can scale, but how can the assumptions?
@EricPreneta I had this same thought, I'm trying to work it out too. Here's how I'm thinking about it:
One of the assumptions in this argument is that there are no other animals that could've knocked over the trash can. That is just as likely to be true as it is false because we have no idea about any other possible animalian culprits.
If there was another premise that said there has never been another animal inside the home except for Mr. Fat Cat, then this assumption would be much more likely to be true. Not 100% likely to be true because maybe it's possible the window was open and a bird flew in and knocked over the trash can, but very likely.
On the other hand, consider an additional premise saying that Big Dog was in the house at the time of the crime. Then, the assumption that no other animal could've knocked over the trash can becomes less likely. Not 100% unlikely, but less likely to be true.
In these hypotheticals, the assumption does lie somewhere on a spectrum. The assumption that no other animal could've knocked over the trash can is not 100% true or 100% false.
Sorry for the essay, it's helpful to type out thoughts. Hopefully this helps, and let me know your thoughts!
So what I understand is that the more reasonable the assumption, the weaker the argument, the more arbitrary the assumption, the stronger. I realize there are other factors, but I feel this is a good base to work with, then you follow-up with the same as the Tiger argument, the Mammal assumption and the aggressiveness assumption, where they are more likely to be true than false.
Free my boy Fat Cat :'(
For me, I think a good takeaway for strengthen/weaken claims is that weak arguments can be strengthened if their assumptions are promoted to the status of premises.
In this case of the Mr. Fat Cat example, if we grant that there were no other animals in the house, that he is strong enough to push the trash can over, and that he only licks his paws after eating, as premises rather than assumptions, then we have a much stronger argument.
@LaneyWilliams yes, i came to the same exact conclusion as well. Had these premises been present when initially evaluating the 3 arguments, this certainly would be stronger (potentially surpassing the tiger argument, if we provide enough information through premises that were once assumptions). however, because these assumptions remain assumptions when viewing this argument as it was originally presented, this is a weaker argument than the tiger argument. great insight!
So we had an assumption that was "tangible" to real life, like all cats generally like knocking things over, etc. this would've been a stronger argument.
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.
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.
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?
So when looking at assumptions we always want to include a new piece of information.
Seems like the more fanciful and mind-bending assumptions could just be chalked up to being weak. However, the nuance associated with "what is reasonable" has yet been explained or expanded on. My issue is where does the buck stop when applying what is "reasonable" i.e. what your "average" person coming off the street would say. All notwithstanding most people off the street can't identify countries in the Middle East.
One thing I don't quite understand: why do we not distinguish between the strength of assumptions based on how easy they would be to prove?
In this example, you could ask the owner if he has any other pets, making the assumption that "there wasn't another pet in the house that could have done this" provable. On the other hand, you can't really prove the assumption about Mr. Fat Cat's strength. Maybe he was very motivated and muscled the strength like the mothers do when they lift a car to rescue their baby. Maybe he wouldn't have the strength but managed to aim his body as a cannonball in just the right position, using the momentum?
In short, is there a spectrum of assumption reasonableness based on effort it would take to prove its truth?
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!
This was a nice explanation