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?
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 :)
@JayEgger I seen you comment and it very much helped me, because initially I actually disagreed with the first assumption you listed, I thought the overall conclusion the argument was making is that Mr. Fat Cat knocked over the trash bin, I did not think it was both that he knocked it over and that he wanted salmon. In my mind, I read the salmon part as more background information, rather than part of the conclusion.
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
@JRamirez I was thinking the same thing! It doesn't say.
It's an assumption that the salmon is now missing based only on the information in the passage. However, I think it's a reasonable assumption.
I conclude that for LSAT purposes, it's a reasonable assumption. For real life purposes, it'd be easy to find out the answer and you wouldn't have to assume.
@Metroidude the detective should have looked at Mr. Fat Cat's mouth and seen if there was any salmon residue left over. Reasonable assumption is Mr. Fat Cat is a messy eater, after all.
@JRamirez The argument never says if the salmon is still there or not, so yea if the detective knew the same amount of salmon he threw away was still there, it would weaken the argument. Also you would want it to be stronger than "dislikes salmon" because many people eat things they dislike all the time. You would want it to say that Mr. Fat Cat has not and will not eat salmon.
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.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
108 comments
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
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.
@Hfa 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
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"
@JayEgger I seen you comment and it very much helped me, because initially I actually disagreed with the first assumption you listed, I thought the overall conclusion the argument was making is that Mr. Fat Cat knocked over the trash bin, I did not think it was both that he knocked it over and that he wanted salmon. In my mind, I read the salmon part as more background information, rather than part of the conclusion.
Thanks.
@JayEgger This was a great breakdown to read. :)
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
@JRamirez I was thinking the same thing! It doesn't say.
It's an assumption that the salmon is now missing based only on the information in the passage. However, I think it's a reasonable assumption.
I conclude that for LSAT purposes, it's a reasonable assumption. For real life purposes, it'd be easy to find out the answer and you wouldn't have to assume.
@Metroidude the detective should have looked at Mr. Fat Cat's mouth and seen if there was any salmon residue left over. Reasonable assumption is Mr. Fat Cat is a messy eater, after all.
@JRamirez I was thinking this also
@JRamirez The argument never says if the salmon is still there or not, so yea if the detective knew the same amount of salmon he threw away was still there, it would weaken the argument. Also you would want it to be stronger than "dislikes salmon" because many people eat things they dislike all the time. You would want it to say that Mr. Fat Cat has not and will not eat salmon.
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.
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.