I think the difference of the Disney argument compared to the other two is that this argument is conditional. The last sentence says "must have", which means in order for Walt to receive a Genie fast pass he had only two options - either to offer propitiations to Mickey Mouse or to prostrate before Goofy's alter in Magic Kingdom. Since he already received the pass, but didn't prostrate himself to anything the only option left for him is to requisite propitiations.
Why can’t you assume that the goat method is not the only way to get a Genie+ pass? And wouldn’t you assume that the prostration does or doesn’t give you a Genie+ pass, since it isn’t stated whether that gives you a pass? I would assume these things on the test so I might be cooked
I think that there are some assumptions here. One is that he didn't have a pass before this rule. Because it says members of DVC can "now" access the pass. So that makes me assume that the pass is not a new thing, but the rule is. So what if Walt paid full price for it before the perk was implemented.
If this had said there is now a new pass called the Genie+ fast pass and only DVC members can access it, that would have been a sounder argument.
I feel that a possible hole in the argument is that there is a secret third option for Disney Vacation Club members to obtain the Genie+ pass. The argument never states that there are exclusively two methods of obtaining the pass.
At first I thought a possible assumption if we are trying to poke holes in the reasoning would be that non-members of Disney Vacation club can access the Genie+ pass a different way. However, once we mention that Walt is a member of the DVC than that assumption is no longer being made.
I feel that there are a few holes for assumption in this argument.
First, we assume that the Disney Vacation Club Genie+ pass has always had this system that it abides by, in terms of acquiring the pass.
Secondly, an assumption I saw some other individuals point out that I too agree with is that of the Genie+ pass only being accessable by Disney Vacation Club members. What of the other club members?
In the argument, it says members can access the genie plus pass. but it nowhere states that thats the only way to get the fast pass and the same principle in my mind applies for the pass on the phone? isnt there an assumption that those are the only ways ( to get the pass and to get the pass on the phone, cause can means permitted or typically allowed but no where does it say "only then can they so and so" ) for both the premises? also isnt there another assumption as to all other members must prostrate themselves? as its assuming the pass is needed or else you must take part in the prostration? My point is that it is a strong argument but doesn't it still have assumptions tho reasonable ones? or am I tripping?
I feel like it could be assumed here that Walt hasnt done anything illegal to obtain a pass, (barring the potentiall illegality of animal cruelty), like stealing a pass. The argument also does not stipulate that the passes must be linked to a membership or named card, in which case Walt could potentially have stolen a card that is not tied to personal identity.
A possible assumption is that there wasn't a third method in the past that was phased out, that Walt used and has been grandfathered in to the modern day.
It doesn't state that there are only two ways to get the pass so would it not be a valid assumption to say that there could be a third way to obtain the pass?
what if there is a third way to get the pass, like Walt is related to some senior managers in Disney, they just give the pass to Walt. Isn't this a kind of assumption? or skepticism doesn't count as an valid assumption.
At first I thought, It may be a bit improbable but couldn't we assume that Walt stole that pass, or that Walt found that pass lying on the ground outside of the park? If the question here is how he obtained the pass I believe there are other assumptions to be made if we really tried. But then I realized since Walt is a member, the question is more so pertaining to how the pass that he owns has said access. Those are the only two options to achieve that level of access. Since that is the case then it is seemingly an airtight argument as he said.
I would also argue that there are assumptions that could reasonably be made. Disney Vacation Members can access a Genie pass, but it doesn't stipulate that ONLY Disney Vacation Members can access the Genie pass, right?
Not sure if I agree that there are absolutely no assumptions. We assume Walt likes Disney, which must be true given he has a Genie pass, but still an assumption at its base. I guess this assumption would technically be irrelevant given the conclusion has nothing to do with his likes or dislikes, but rather is a statement of what he must have done to obtain a certain level of access to his pass.
I know this is the first real lesson but I guess I'm failing to see how this is going to be applied on the LSAT? I know I should understand the building of an argument but I'm not understanding how to relate this to the actual practice questions I've done so far
So, if the conclusion can be fully answered by the premises given "fact premises", then we know that no assumption is needed and it's a valid argument?
0
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.
123 comments
I think the difference of the Disney argument compared to the other two is that this argument is conditional. The last sentence says "must have", which means in order for Walt to receive a Genie fast pass he had only two options - either to offer propitiations to Mickey Mouse or to prostrate before Goofy's alter in Magic Kingdom. Since he already received the pass, but didn't prostrate himself to anything the only option left for him is to requisite propitiations.
Why can’t you assume that the goat method is not the only way to get a Genie+ pass? And wouldn’t you assume that the prostration does or doesn’t give you a Genie+ pass, since it isn’t stated whether that gives you a pass? I would assume these things on the test so I might be cooked
Valid arguments contain no assumptions
when the premises are true it is a valid argument
- valid argument contain no assumptions
Wouldn't "There are only two ways to get the pass" be an assumption?
valid argument = if premises are true (i.e. no assumptions/missing links)--->then conclusion has to be true
I think that there are some assumptions here. One is that he didn't have a pass before this rule. Because it says members of DVC can "now" access the pass. So that makes me assume that the pass is not a new thing, but the rule is. So what if Walt paid full price for it before the perk was implemented.
If this had said there is now a new pass called the Genie+ fast pass and only DVC members can access it, that would have been a sounder argument.
valid arguments have zero assumptions
I feel that a possible hole in the argument is that there is a secret third option for Disney Vacation Club members to obtain the Genie+ pass. The argument never states that there are exclusively two methods of obtaining the pass.
At first I thought a possible assumption if we are trying to poke holes in the reasoning would be that non-members of Disney Vacation club can access the Genie+ pass a different way. However, once we mention that Walt is a member of the DVC than that assumption is no longer being made.
I feel that there are a few holes for assumption in this argument.
First, we assume that the Disney Vacation Club Genie+ pass has always had this system that it abides by, in terms of acquiring the pass.
Secondly, an assumption I saw some other individuals point out that I too agree with is that of the Genie+ pass only being accessable by Disney Vacation Club members. What of the other club members?
A possible assumption is that: Only Disney Vacation Club members can access the Genie+ fast pass.
What if other groups of individuals not club members can access the Genie+ pass through a different method?
In the argument, it says members can access the genie plus pass. but it nowhere states that thats the only way to get the fast pass and the same principle in my mind applies for the pass on the phone? isnt there an assumption that those are the only ways ( to get the pass and to get the pass on the phone, cause can means permitted or typically allowed but no where does it say "only then can they so and so" ) for both the premises? also isnt there another assumption as to all other members must prostrate themselves? as its assuming the pass is needed or else you must take part in the prostration? My point is that it is a strong argument but doesn't it still have assumptions tho reasonable ones? or am I tripping?
I feel like it could be assumed here that Walt hasnt done anything illegal to obtain a pass, (barring the potentiall illegality of animal cruelty), like stealing a pass. The argument also does not stipulate that the passes must be linked to a membership or named card, in which case Walt could potentially have stolen a card that is not tied to personal identity.
A possible assumption is that there wasn't a third method in the past that was phased out, that Walt used and has been grandfathered in to the modern day.
It doesn't state that there are only two ways to get the pass so would it not be a valid assumption to say that there could be a third way to obtain the pass?
what if there is a third way to get the pass, like Walt is related to some senior managers in Disney, they just give the pass to Walt. Isn't this a kind of assumption? or skepticism doesn't count as an valid assumption.
if anyone has done a logic proof in geometry or discrete math, this example is exactly like that!! P OR Q, P implies Q, that type of stuff!
Isn't is an assumption that the only way to access the Genie+ pass is through the Disney app? Why not the website, or through a QR code, etc?
At first I thought, It may be a bit improbable but couldn't we assume that Walt stole that pass, or that Walt found that pass lying on the ground outside of the park? If the question here is how he obtained the pass I believe there are other assumptions to be made if we really tried. But then I realized since Walt is a member, the question is more so pertaining to how the pass that he owns has said access. Those are the only two options to achieve that level of access. Since that is the case then it is seemingly an airtight argument as he said.
I would also argue that there are assumptions that could reasonably be made. Disney Vacation Members can access a Genie pass, but it doesn't stipulate that ONLY Disney Vacation Members can access the Genie pass, right?
Not sure if I agree that there are absolutely no assumptions. We assume Walt likes Disney, which must be true given he has a Genie pass, but still an assumption at its base. I guess this assumption would technically be irrelevant given the conclusion has nothing to do with his likes or dislikes, but rather is a statement of what he must have done to obtain a certain level of access to his pass.
I know this is the first real lesson but I guess I'm failing to see how this is going to be applied on the LSAT? I know I should understand the building of an argument but I'm not understanding how to relate this to the actual practice questions I've done so far
assuming walt never signed a contract with goofy that he gets a pass as long as he prostrates himself at a later date? jk but a legit assumption
So, if the conclusion can be fully answered by the premises given "fact premises", then we know that no assumption is needed and it's a valid argument?