@Jresen It's a rule premise. In the world of this Disney problem, premise 3 is an established rule that we are to take as fact for that universe. It's not an intermediate conclusion because it's not a sentence that is concluding anything.
the argument never says that being in the Disney Vacation Club is the only way to gain access to the fast pass. would it not be a possibility that Walt gained acess to the fast pass through another unmentioned route? Even though Walt is in the DVC, and he has the Genie+ pass, it is plausable he could have gotten the latter independiently, no? the argument requires the assumption that the DVC is the only way to acess the Genie+ pass.
@Ll1209! I think the first sentence is used to imply that the DVC members can access the Genie+, meaning that all other customers do not matter. Considering this is discussing DVC members and Walt IS one, he must have used one of the two vessels. Hypothetically, in your situation that Walt DID obtain the Genie+ pass another way, it's simply impossible because he is a DVC member and the DVC members only have 2 methods. You are thinking outside of the bounds of this argument, as it gives you the guidelines.
So in other words, assumptions are missing links between the premises and conclusion. Therefore, the strongest arguments have the least missing links between the premises and conclusion.
@AveryClose From my understanding, if something is a premise, it can't also be an assumption. Assumptions are missing links between the premises and the conclusion. The argument contains a premise that states "Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club." We have no reason to believe otherwise, as the argument says he IS a member of the DVC.
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
@Daisy228 I initially thought the same thing. The trick is in the sentence "as soon as we grant the truth of [the argument's] premises".
If you assume the truths that a) you can offer 10 goats for the Genie+ pass, and b) if you do not offer 10 goats, the only way to get it is to prostrate yourself before the altar, then there is simply no other way to get the pass, and you must do one or the other.
The difference between this and the cat argument is, that even if you take all the premises to be true in the cat argument, it still relies on assumptions to make those premises lead to the conclusion. For example, if you take it as true that the cat licks his paws like that after having eaten something, that does not mean that he doesn't also do that in other circumstances as well. Another example is that one needs to assume that the cat, like most, likes fish (and hence salmon). That may be conventional wisdom, but to accept that would be to take information outside of the argument itself as true and apply that to the situation (or, in other words, it would be making an assumption).
@Daisy228 Nope, never challenge the truth of the premises, you can challenge the strength premises give to the conclusion, but if a premise says something is true it is not to be questioned.
The argument is using what we call conditional reasoning. A better way we can rephrase this would be to say: "If you have the pass, either you Prostrated yourself, or you gave adequate propitiations."
Then we would say, since Walt has the pass and did not prostrate himself, he must have given the propitiations.
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.
@SRay Yeah another assumption is the pass is only offered on the app. What about a physical pass. The argument states the requirements to pass access on the app only.
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.
@JennaCorazzi the use of the term "all other members" in the third premise eliminates the possibility of another option and limits the methods of obtaining the pass to two
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?
@ThierryLubin I think since the argument states that Walt has a Genie+ pass and the conclusion is based on this then it doesnt matter if non-members of the Disney Vacation Club also have access since its irrelevant info.
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?
@JonSnowTakestheLSAT There is no unstated assumption in the argument. The use of "can" signals that Disney Vacation Club members are now eligible to access the Genie+ fast pass, but the argument immediately qualifies that eligibility. Members may obtain the pass only if they meet one of two conditions: either offering ten goats in propitiation or prostrating before Goofy's altar. These conditions are presented as mutually exclusive and exhaustive. In other words, while members can get the pass, they cannot obtain it unless they fulfill one of these two requirements. (It is wise to approach "can" statements as way they imply cannot be done)
The mention of downloading the pass via the app is irrelevant to the core logic. It, perhaps, introduces an additional premise, but one that does not affect the validity of the argument. This is common on the LSAT - arguments often contain extra, irrelevant details. Just because a premise appears does not mean it must be used. What matters is whether the conclusion logically follows from the necessary premises. In this case, the conclusion rests on two key facts: Walt has the Genie+ pass, and he has never prostrated himself. Therefore, he must have offered the goats. The argument is valid
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.
This is what I was thinking. The premise states that all members CAN NOW access Genie pass. That's a crucial phrase isn't it? "Can Now" indicates there were rules from before that might have had something to do with Walts status.
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.
Whether Walt can access the Genie+ pass outside of the app is irrelevant to the argument. The argument revolves around how Walt obtained the pass, and since he's both a member of the vacation club and hasn't prostrated himself, he had to give the offerings. How he can access the pass doesn't really matter.
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.
Assuming he stole it would still not deter the fact that the only way to obtain the original pass would have been to either do the first premise or the other. Also, we have been given no data to assume that there have been any instances of lost passes by other individuals. Maybe the passes contain personal information that wouldn't be linked to the perpetrator. Also, it says in the passage that the pass can be obtained in the app meaning the original owner would still have access to the pass and we can assume the owner would report the stolen physical item if there was such a thing but given that we know the only way to obtain a pass is through an app, there is nothing to support the idea of a lost physical item.
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.
135 comments
I can confirm I offered the goats. Not waiting in those damn lines.
Looking back at this after getting further in the curriculum - why is premise 3 not considered an intermediate conclusion?
@opb1234 can you explain? I just began studying.
@Jresen It's a rule premise. In the world of this Disney problem, premise 3 is an established rule that we are to take as fact for that universe. It's not an intermediate conclusion because it's not a sentence that is concluding anything.
the argument never says that being in the Disney Vacation Club is the only way to gain access to the fast pass. would it not be a possibility that Walt gained acess to the fast pass through another unmentioned route? Even though Walt is in the DVC, and he has the Genie+ pass, it is plausable he could have gotten the latter independiently, no? the argument requires the assumption that the DVC is the only way to acess the Genie+ pass.
@Ll1209! I think the first sentence is used to imply that the DVC members can access the Genie+, meaning that all other customers do not matter. Considering this is discussing DVC members and Walt IS one, he must have used one of the two vessels. Hypothetically, in your situation that Walt DID obtain the Genie+ pass another way, it's simply impossible because he is a DVC member and the DVC members only have 2 methods. You are thinking outside of the bounds of this argument, as it gives you the guidelines.
So in other words, assumptions are missing links between the premises and conclusion. Therefore, the strongest arguments have the least missing links between the premises and conclusion.
Isn't the premises that Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club an assumption?
@AveryClose From my understanding, if something is a premise, it can't also be an assumption. Assumptions are missing links between the premises and the conclusion. The argument contains a premise that states "Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club." We have no reason to believe otherwise, as the argument says he IS a member of the DVC.
@rksawan Thank you so much for the response, that makes a lot of sense!
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
@DavidGe Exactly, me too :(
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?
@Daisy228 I initially thought the same thing. The trick is in the sentence "as soon as we grant the truth of [the argument's] premises".
If you assume the truths that a) you can offer 10 goats for the Genie+ pass, and b) if you do not offer 10 goats, the only way to get it is to prostrate yourself before the altar, then there is simply no other way to get the pass, and you must do one or the other.
The difference between this and the cat argument is, that even if you take all the premises to be true in the cat argument, it still relies on assumptions to make those premises lead to the conclusion. For example, if you take it as true that the cat licks his paws like that after having eaten something, that does not mean that he doesn't also do that in other circumstances as well. Another example is that one needs to assume that the cat, like most, likes fish (and hence salmon). That may be conventional wisdom, but to accept that would be to take information outside of the argument itself as true and apply that to the situation (or, in other words, it would be making an assumption).
Hope that helps!
@mhenwohl OHHHHH wait I read this a couple of timesand I think I am getting to the point.
You are amazing thanks!!
@Daisy228 no problem :)
@Daisy228 Nope, never challenge the truth of the premises, you can challenge the strength premises give to the conclusion, but if a premise says something is true it is not to be questioned.
The argument is using what we call conditional reasoning. A better way we can rephrase this would be to say: "If you have the pass, either you Prostrated yourself, or you gave adequate propitiations."
Then we would say, since Walt has the pass and did not prostrate himself, he must have given the propitiations.
@mhenwohl Very helpful explanation, thank you.
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.
@SRay Yeah another assumption is the pass is only offered on the app. What about a physical pass. The argument states the requirements to pass access on the app only.
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.
@JennaCorazzi the use of the term "all other members" in the third premise eliminates the possibility of another option and limits the methods of obtaining the pass to two
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?
@ThierryLubin I think since the argument states that Walt has a Genie+ pass and the conclusion is based on this then it doesnt matter if non-members of the Disney Vacation Club also have access since its irrelevant info.
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?
@JonSnowTakestheLSAT There is no unstated assumption in the argument. The use of "can" signals that Disney Vacation Club members are now eligible to access the Genie+ fast pass, but the argument immediately qualifies that eligibility. Members may obtain the pass only if they meet one of two conditions: either offering ten goats in propitiation or prostrating before Goofy's altar. These conditions are presented as mutually exclusive and exhaustive. In other words, while members can get the pass, they cannot obtain it unless they fulfill one of these two requirements. (It is wise to approach "can" statements as way they imply cannot be done)
The mention of downloading the pass via the app is irrelevant to the core logic. It, perhaps, introduces an additional premise, but one that does not affect the validity of the argument. This is common on the LSAT - arguments often contain extra, irrelevant details. Just because a premise appears does not mean it must be used. What matters is whether the conclusion logically follows from the necessary premises. In this case, the conclusion rests on two key facts: Walt has the Genie+ pass, and he has never prostrated himself. Therefore, he must have offered the goats. The argument is valid
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.
This is what I was thinking. The premise states that all members CAN NOW access Genie pass. That's a crucial phrase isn't it? "Can Now" indicates there were rules from before that might have had something to do with Walts status.
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?
My understanding is that because the second scenario begins with "All other members," these are the only two possible ways to get the pass.
But what's disallowing a third non-member way?
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.
because it says ALL OTHER MEMBERS must do wtv to goofy we are to believe that these are the only 2 ways to enter
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?
I agree with the first part of your statement. The how is what i am asking about.
Whether Walt can access the Genie+ pass outside of the app is irrelevant to the argument. The argument revolves around how Walt obtained the pass, and since he's both a member of the vacation club and hasn't prostrated himself, he had to give the offerings. How he can access the pass doesn't really matter.
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.
Assuming he stole it would still not deter the fact that the only way to obtain the original pass would have been to either do the first premise or the other. Also, we have been given no data to assume that there have been any instances of lost passes by other individuals. Maybe the passes contain personal information that wouldn't be linked to the perpetrator. Also, it says in the passage that the pass can be obtained in the app meaning the original owner would still have access to the pass and we can assume the owner would report the stolen physical item if there was such a thing but given that we know the only way to obtain a pass is through an app, there is nothing to support the idea of a lost physical item.