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.
Assuming Mr. Fat Cat likes salmon, the premise states that the contents are spilled, including the salmon. Could we argue that it could not have been Mr. Fat Cat since the salmon is still spilled and not gone
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.
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.
1. Mr. Fat Cat only licks his paw after eating. (In other words, if he is licking his paw, it must be true that he has eaten right before).
2. Mr. Fat Cat could not have eaten anything else but the trash bin salmon. (In other words, if he ate something, it must be true that it was the trash bin salmon).
3. Mr. Fat Cat could not have eaten the trash bin salmon without flipping the trash can. (In other words, if the Fat Cat ate the trash bin salmon, it must be true that he also flipped the trash can).
Therefore, with the updated premises, the argument is as follows:
1. Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter, self-satisfied, licking his paw to clean his face the way he does after having eaten.
2. Mr. Fat Cat only licks his paw after eating.
3. Mr. Fat Cat could not have eaten anything else but the trash bin salmon.
4. Mr. Fat Cat could not have eaten the trash bin salmon without intentionally tripping the can.
5. Therefore, Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party, having intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within.
It is an assumption that Fat Cat knocked over the bin at all? Everything else in the story could be true without needing Fat Cat knocking over the bin to be true.
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?
The Trash Bin argument is more likely to be ranked as a weaker argument because the assumptions are not reasonable. Meaning that there is no clear inference that can be made based on the assumption.
correct me if im wrong, but I think assumptions are made in regards to the premises. Notably, each assumption in the video targeted a different premise questioning its support to the conclusion. As enough assumptions were made it brought question to the strength of the arguments conclusion moving it towards the lower end of the strength chart we saw in previous lessons
how do we know which assumptions to assert in each argument, and how do we know if the negative of that argument is the correct or incorrect assumption to make? then, how can we assert if the argument is strong or weak?
Can we also determine argument strength by quantifying assumptions? Does Argument 2 (Tigers), having less assumptions than 3 (Mr. Fat Cat), place it in the middle of this spectrum?
I'm a little lost.... are we supposed to make assumptions outside of the information given to us?
Ex:There wasn't another pet in the house who could have done this.
I thought we were supposed to leave out "outside" factors and that was not stated... so I am a little confused on exactly what assumptions to be making.
For example: I was thinking as an assumption that Mr Fat Cat knocked down the trash can for something other than salmon. Is that still a valid assumption?
I don't know.. I was using the assumption that perhaps Mr. Fat Cat had salmon remnant on his paws. But then, I see the important of whether or not he could even knock over the trash can. Perhaps a raccoon knocked over the trash can, and Mr. Fat Cat was just helping himself. Also, was this indoors or outdoors? It think it goes to the same question of whether there are other animals around.
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?
6
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.
81 comments
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.
This was a nice explanation
This breakdown was so helpful
Some assumptions:
Mr. Fat Cat specifically knocked over the trash can to get the salmon, other than just for "fun," as cats are wont to do.
Mr. Fat Cat may have knocked over the trash can on accident; maybe it's a light trash can and he was running around and knocked it over
Maybe there was other food in the trash can, like some leftover wet food drippings that he was actually intending to go for
Mr. Fat Cat was perched on the counter because he was eating the salmon there, whereas it could be just a normal hangout spot
Maybe someone else in the house had just fed Mr. Fat Cat
In an extreme case, maybe someone was trying to frame Mr. Fat Cat because they don't want him in the house anymore and "planted evidence"
Assuming Mr. Fat Cat likes salmon, the premise states that the contents are spilled, including the salmon. Could we argue that it could not have been Mr. Fat Cat since the salmon is still spilled and not gone
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.
Weak supported arguments allow for arbitrary assumptions to be made.
*"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.
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.
The necessary assumptions are:
1. Mr. Fat Cat only licks his paw after eating. (In other words, if he is licking his paw, it must be true that he has eaten right before).
2. Mr. Fat Cat could not have eaten anything else but the trash bin salmon. (In other words, if he ate something, it must be true that it was the trash bin salmon).
3. Mr. Fat Cat could not have eaten the trash bin salmon without flipping the trash can. (In other words, if the Fat Cat ate the trash bin salmon, it must be true that he also flipped the trash can).
Therefore, with the updated premises, the argument is as follows:
1. Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter, self-satisfied, licking his paw to clean his face the way he does after having eaten.
2. Mr. Fat Cat only licks his paw after eating.
3. Mr. Fat Cat could not have eaten anything else but the trash bin salmon.
4. Mr. Fat Cat could not have eaten the trash bin salmon without intentionally tripping the can.
5. Therefore, Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party, having intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within.
It is an assumption that Fat Cat knocked over the bin at all? Everything else in the story could be true without needing Fat Cat knocking over the bin to be true.
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?
The Trash Bin argument is more likely to be ranked as a weaker argument because the assumptions are not reasonable. Meaning that there is no clear inference that can be made based on the assumption.
correct me if im wrong, but I think assumptions are made in regards to the premises. Notably, each assumption in the video targeted a different premise questioning its support to the conclusion. As enough assumptions were made it brought question to the strength of the arguments conclusion moving it towards the lower end of the strength chart we saw in previous lessons
Does Mr. Fat Cat even like salmon? My cat doesn't! ;)
how do we know which assumptions to assert in each argument, and how do we know if the negative of that argument is the correct or incorrect assumption to make? then, how can we assert if the argument is strong or weak?
Would a good way to find an assumption is pretending like you are trying to debate?
LOL My assumption was Mr. Fat Cat eats Salmon. Neither of my cats like salmon :)
Can we also determine argument strength by quantifying assumptions? Does Argument 2 (Tigers), having less assumptions than 3 (Mr. Fat Cat), place it in the middle of this spectrum?
I'm a little lost.... are we supposed to make assumptions outside of the information given to us?
Ex:There wasn't another pet in the house who could have done this.
I thought we were supposed to leave out "outside" factors and that was not stated... so I am a little confused on exactly what assumptions to be making.
I kinda looked at it different:
Am I not allowed to attack the conclusion?
For example: I was thinking as an assumption that Mr Fat Cat knocked down the trash can for something other than salmon. Is that still a valid assumption?
I don't know.. I was using the assumption that perhaps Mr. Fat Cat had salmon remnant on his paws. But then, I see the important of whether or not he could even knock over the trash can. Perhaps a raccoon knocked over the trash can, and Mr. Fat Cat was just helping himself. Also, was this indoors or outdoors? It think it goes to the same question of whether there are other animals around.
justice for mr fat cat
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?