I'm noticing people in the comments arguing all kinds of what ifs...remember...we are in THIS argument's particular world. We do not know that any other clubs or time for that matter exist in THIS argument's world. So yes, in our REAL world, there are many OTHER ways to for Walt to get the Genie+ pass but in THE argument's world...there are only two options. At least that is what I am understanding.
I understand where you're coming from, but wouldn't it be a stronger argument if it perhaps stated the following in bold ??
Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass, which is only available via the Disney App. Those who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app. All other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom. Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club. He has a Genie+ pass yet he has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything. Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.
We have been talking logic, I know, but we need to take a second and bring together the LSAT's scope of logic with the generic scope so that we can think more clearly about these concepts.
Thus far, we defined
Valid Argument: if we assume (imagine a world) the truth *of the premises, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.
Well, what about invalid? It is just as important on the LSAT to know the definition of invalid arguments:
Invalid Argument: if we assume the truth of the premises, the conclusion could be false. AHHH.. okay, now I am getting it. What in the world could make the conclusion be false? THE ASSUMPTIONS! This is why validity of an argument is not concerned with truth! Even for perfectly valid arguments, we are simply assuming the truth of the premises, otherwise stated, we are living in a fugayzi fugahzi world.
What about sound arguments? Well,
Sound Arguments: These are arguments where the premises are actually true in the real world, and these premises guarantee a factual conclusion. _So, succinctly stated, it is a valid argument but that is also factually accurate.
Valid argument example: All cats can fly, Timmy is a cat, therefore, Timmy can fly.
The argument is valid (assuming the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion) but unsound (not actually true).
Sound argument: _Dogs have 4 legs, Brady is a dog, therefore, Brady has 4 legs.
The argument is valid and sound. Premises guarantee the conclusion, also, the premises are actually true in the real world!_
It has been argued that soundness falls just outside of the scope of logic because logic is not equipped to determine truth of natural phenomenon. However, logic determines the necessary quality of soundness, and that is validity.
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
#feedback I feel like there is an assumption here that only Disney Vacation Club members can access the Genie+ pass. The stimulus says what DVC members must do to get the Genie+ pass, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that there may be other ways to get the pass as a non-DVC club member.
You would be right, but remember, the question explicitly is asking about Walt, and says he is indeed a member, and that all members must do one of the two ways. There may be other ways outside of the vacation club, but that is irrelevant.
The reason why we can't assume that there are other ways possibly to get to the goal is that, if you aren't offering mickey the goats, it says "ALL OTHER MEMBERS" must bend over for goofy. So that basically tells us theres only 2 ways to get in the club, offer mickey the goats and if you don't do that, you had to have bent over for goofy. I think the key is in the MUST....
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.
One possible assumption I see is that it is not possible to steal a Genie+ pass from another member. Walt has a Genie+ pass, but it is never said he acquired it himself through Disney Vacation Club!
Isn't there an assumption left as to the means of receiving the fast pass? the propitations and the prostration are the prerequisite to downloading their pass via the disney app. It's not stated that this is the only way to receive the fast pass. It's also not stated that Walt downloaded his pass via the Disney app.
Also if he stole the pass, then the conclusion would also be false.
What if there is a higher tier membership that allows you to access the fast pass without these conditions as well.
@LenyGrunis I thought this as well but the cool thing about this argument is that Walt having the Genie+ pass is not actually relevant at all to the conclusion.
You can remove the Genie+ Pass from your line of reasoning entirely.
Those (members) who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app.
All other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom.
Walt is a member of the Disney vacation club.
Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.
The Genie+ Pass is actually irrelevant here. I got caught up on this argument originally because I felt like there was a logical leap that the Genie+ fast pass is the same as the Genie+ pass in the argument
Why did this terminology change? Could an amusement park not have both a Fast pass and a pass? Could Walt have had the Genie+ Pass BEFORE he became a member?
But then I realized that that the rest of the statements are sufficient without even considering the Fast pass!
@R307 him being a member of the disney vacation club means he is bound by the rules premise that members who have offered 10 goats worth of propitations to mickey mouse can get their Genie+ pass via the app. However the way its worded means that there is no rule binding members who do not download it via the app. He meets one of the conditions as stated, but the other condition is left up for assumption. The conclusion is based on him having the Genie+ pass, not on him having it downloaded via the app, which means you have to assume that he downloaded it via the app.
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.
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
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?
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.
@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.
@mhenwohl this helped so much, thank you! Please correct me if I'm wrong but what I understand from this too is that the stronger the premise is the less assumptions can be made and vice versa. Because the Disney premises provide us with concrete facts that make the conclusion true and the cat's conclusion is in speculation, thats what makes Disney a valid argument.
This seems to be a common point of discussion in the comments, but I'm struggling with the idea that we have to assume being a DVC member is a condition necessary for having access to the Genie+ pass. A common response to this concern I'm seeing is that Walt IS a DVC member, so that's irrelevant anyway. I disagree. If there is a 〰secret third option〰 for getting access to the pass for non-DVC members, who's to say DVC members cannot also use that route?
There's probably no such thing as a perfect example, but as we're learning to think critically about assumptions, etc., it becomes difficult to ignore these things. It feels like a trick question.
I agree, I'm struggling with the idea that this is an airtight argument as well. The first thing I thought of was, well is there no other way to get Genie+ without being a DVC member?
You mention this is 'air tight' but I've been thinking about whether or not Walt could have had the Genie+ pass before these two conditions were introduced as the only method to acquire the Genie+ pass. It doesn't mention when Walt got the pass, or when these two conditions became the only method of getting this pass.
If he paid a bunch of money 5 years ago for a lifetime membership, for example (someone did this for an airline for unlimited miles a long time ago), then they updated their policy he could have no done either of these items and still have it.
I ALSO think the confusion is so valid, because so many questions on the LSAT have this type of scenario--one where they say you need a or b to get in, and the answer ends up being one that says "fails to consider there could be other ways to get in" this happens all the time, so the explanation about "needs to be in the stimulus" idk if it holds up well or the one with "doesnt weaker or strengthen" i dont see as valid either.
I understand that there are literally only two ways to get this Genie+ pass, but I can't help but to question whether people like employees or people that are Walts friends/family get special treatment and wouldn't have to do either of these to receive the pass. I'm still having a hard time understanding how these are strong assumptions.
I think you bring up a good question but it's important to remember that the stimuli never introduced "employee's or friends/families". In the universe of this question, we have to assume that there is no "discounted 3rd way" like there may be in real life because we have no information in the stimuli to support that. If lets say, instead of "all other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar", it said "Almost all other members must..." then we would have reason to assume there might be a 3rd way.
We can only poke holes in assumptions the argument actually made and only have as much information as the stimuli tells us.
Comparing this to the Tiger Arguement, the argument assumed that tigers are mammals. It never said "tigers are mammals", but it was implied through the argument. This is a situation where we can bring in outside information/ think about whether the assumption made is generally accepted as true based on our outside knowledge. Whereas with the Disney argument, there are no assumptions. It explicitly states what is the case and how each premise is connected to one another so, we cannot bring in outside information and must rely ONLY on what is stated in the stimuli.
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 see a lot of confusion on why there could not be an assumption such as a "third option". For example, the third option could be stealing or through a different program. In my opinion, this is irrelevant. If you recall, an assumption is a "missing link" between existing premises and conclusions to validify the argument. Taking the existing premises, there is no "hole" per say in how these rules and facts can result in the conclusion.
If we were to modify premise #3 and say something like "Other members can prostrate themselves [...]", which omits "all other" and "must", then it would be reasonable to bring in an assumption on how else Walt could get the DVC. The "all other" and "must" limit the requirements to only the two presented.
Does this assume that the only way to get Genie+ is through Disney Vacation Club? Technically, couldn't there be other ways to get Genie+ and this paragraph only outlines the Disney Vacation Club options?
A possible assumption is actually that Walt accessed the Genie+ fast pass through his Disney Vacation Club membership. The premises don't stipulate that you need to be a member to get a fast pass, just how members access fast passes.
It says Disney Vacation club members MUST do 2 or 3, and Walt IS a DVC member. Perhaps someone who is not a DVC member could still access the fast pass through other means, but that is irrelevant in this case since Walt is a member and these requirements apply to all members
149 comments
I can confirm I offered the goats. Not waiting in those damn lines.
I'm noticing people in the comments arguing all kinds of what ifs...remember...we are in THIS argument's particular world. We do not know that any other clubs or time for that matter exist in THIS argument's world. So yes, in our REAL world, there are many OTHER ways to for Walt to get the Genie+ pass but in THE argument's world...there are only two options. At least that is what I am understanding.
I understand where you're coming from, but wouldn't it be a stronger argument if it perhaps stated the following in bold ??
Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass, which is only available via the Disney App. Those who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app. All other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom. Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club. He has a Genie+ pass yet he has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything. Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.
Exactly, well put.
@L_123456 Why are you trying to make it a stronger argument?
Okay, let's take a step back and talk logic.
We have been talking logic, I know, but we need to take a second and bring together the LSAT's scope of logic with the generic scope so that we can think more clearly about these concepts.
Thus far, we defined
Valid Argument: if we assume (imagine a world) the truth *of the premises, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.
Well, what about invalid? It is just as important on the LSAT to know the definition of invalid arguments:
Invalid Argument: if we assume the truth of the premises, the conclusion could be false. AHHH.. okay, now I am getting it. What in the world could make the conclusion be false? THE ASSUMPTIONS! This is why validity of an argument is not concerned with truth! Even for perfectly valid arguments, we are simply assuming the truth of the premises, otherwise stated, we are living in a fugayzi fugahzi world.
What about sound arguments? Well,
Sound Arguments: These are arguments where the premises are actually true in the real world, and these premises guarantee a factual conclusion. _So, succinctly stated, it is a valid argument but that is also factually accurate.
Valid argument example: All cats can fly, Timmy is a cat, therefore, Timmy can fly.
The argument is valid (assuming the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion) but unsound (not actually true).
Sound argument: _Dogs have 4 legs, Brady is a dog, therefore, Brady has 4 legs.
The argument is valid and sound. Premises guarantee the conclusion, also, the premises are actually true in the real world!_
It has been argued that soundness falls just outside of the scope of logic because logic is not equipped to determine truth of natural phenomenon. However, logic determines the necessary quality of soundness, and that is validity.
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 :(
#feedback I feel like there is an assumption here that only Disney Vacation Club members can access the Genie+ pass. The stimulus says what DVC members must do to get the Genie+ pass, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that there may be other ways to get the pass as a non-DVC club member.
You would be right, but remember, the question explicitly is asking about Walt, and says he is indeed a member, and that all members must do one of the two ways. There may be other ways outside of the vacation club, but that is irrelevant.
only look at what you see...sure that would be an assumption which could change the outcome from stronger argument to a moderate to weak argument.
I second this. It would be stronger if the premise was "Members of the Disney Vacation Club now have exclusive access to the new Genie+ fast pass".
I was coming here to say this! There might be other ways to get the Genie+ pass.
I think because after premise 2 (members who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can get their genie+ pass via the app.
Then the next one starts with "All other members ..." it says that in order to get the same result all others must do premise 3.
@yurileedart17266 What other groups do you know of in this premise?
Everything has made sense, but this is still such a WILD argument to come up with as an example... out of ANYTHING, you guys chose THIS.
I was thinking this same thing. Wild. This example is very disturbing. Replacing it may be a good idea.
The reason why we can't assume that there are other ways possibly to get to the goal is that, if you aren't offering mickey the goats, it says "ALL OTHER MEMBERS" must bend over for goofy. So that basically tells us theres only 2 ways to get in the club, offer mickey the goats and if you don't do that, you had to have bent over for goofy. I think the key is in the MUST....
Takeaway - A valid argument makes no assumptions. Therefore, the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion.
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.
valid argument = if premises are true (i.e. no assumptions/missing links)--->then conclusion has to be true
One possible assumption I see is that it is not possible to steal a Genie+ pass from another member. Walt has a Genie+ pass, but it is never said he acquired it himself through Disney Vacation Club!
Isn't there an assumption left as to the means of receiving the fast pass? the propitations and the prostration are the prerequisite to downloading their pass via the disney app. It's not stated that this is the only way to receive the fast pass. It's also not stated that Walt downloaded his pass via the Disney app.
Also if he stole the pass, then the conclusion would also be false.
What if there is a higher tier membership that allows you to access the fast pass without these conditions as well.
@LenyGrunis I thought this as well but the cool thing about this argument is that Walt having the Genie+ pass is not actually relevant at all to the conclusion.
You can remove the Genie+ Pass from your line of reasoning entirely.
Those (members) who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app.
All other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom.
Walt is a member of the Disney vacation club.
Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.
The Genie+ Pass is actually irrelevant here. I got caught up on this argument originally because I felt like there was a logical leap that the Genie+ fast pass is the same as the Genie+ pass in the argument
Why did this terminology change? Could an amusement park not have both a Fast pass and a pass? Could Walt have had the Genie+ Pass BEFORE he became a member?
But then I realized that that the rest of the statements are sufficient without even considering the Fast pass!
@R307 him being a member of the disney vacation club means he is bound by the rules premise that members who have offered 10 goats worth of propitations to mickey mouse can get their Genie+ pass via the app. However the way its worded means that there is no rule binding members who do not download it via the app. He meets one of the conditions as stated, but the other condition is left up for assumption. The conclusion is based on him having the Genie+ pass, not on him having it downloaded via the app, which means you have to assume that he downloaded it via the app.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
@mhenwohl this helped so much, thank you! Please correct me if I'm wrong but what I understand from this too is that the stronger the premise is the less assumptions can be made and vice versa. Because the Disney premises provide us with concrete facts that make the conclusion true and the cat's conclusion is in speculation, thats what makes Disney a valid argument.
This seems to be a common point of discussion in the comments, but I'm struggling with the idea that we have to assume being a DVC member is a condition necessary for having access to the Genie+ pass. A common response to this concern I'm seeing is that Walt IS a DVC member, so that's irrelevant anyway. I disagree. If there is a 〰secret third option〰 for getting access to the pass for non-DVC members, who's to say DVC members cannot also use that route?
There's probably no such thing as a perfect example, but as we're learning to think critically about assumptions, etc., it becomes difficult to ignore these things. It feels like a trick question.
I agree, I'm struggling with the idea that this is an airtight argument as well. The first thing I thought of was, well is there no other way to get Genie+ without being a DVC member?
You mention this is 'air tight' but I've been thinking about whether or not Walt could have had the Genie+ pass before these two conditions were introduced as the only method to acquire the Genie+ pass. It doesn't mention when Walt got the pass, or when these two conditions became the only method of getting this pass.
If he paid a bunch of money 5 years ago for a lifetime membership, for example (someone did this for an airline for unlimited miles a long time ago), then they updated their policy he could have no done either of these items and still have it.
Anyways it's just a flaw I thought of.
I ALSO think the confusion is so valid, because so many questions on the LSAT have this type of scenario--one where they say you need a or b to get in, and the answer ends up being one that says "fails to consider there could be other ways to get in" this happens all the time, so the explanation about "needs to be in the stimulus" idk if it holds up well or the one with "doesnt weaker or strengthen" i dont see as valid either.
I understand that there are literally only two ways to get this Genie+ pass, but I can't help but to question whether people like employees or people that are Walts friends/family get special treatment and wouldn't have to do either of these to receive the pass. I'm still having a hard time understanding how these are strong assumptions.
I think you bring up a good question but it's important to remember that the stimuli never introduced "employee's or friends/families". In the universe of this question, we have to assume that there is no "discounted 3rd way" like there may be in real life because we have no information in the stimuli to support that. If lets say, instead of "all other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar", it said "Almost all other members must..." then we would have reason to assume there might be a 3rd way.
We can only poke holes in assumptions the argument actually made and only have as much information as the stimuli tells us.
Comparing this to the Tiger Arguement, the argument assumed that tigers are mammals. It never said "tigers are mammals", but it was implied through the argument. This is a situation where we can bring in outside information/ think about whether the assumption made is generally accepted as true based on our outside knowledge. Whereas with the Disney argument, there are no assumptions. It explicitly states what is the case and how each premise is connected to one another so, we cannot bring in outside information and must rely ONLY on what is stated in the stimuli.
Thanks for raising this - I had the same thought.
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 see a lot of confusion on why there could not be an assumption such as a "third option". For example, the third option could be stealing or through a different program. In my opinion, this is irrelevant. If you recall, an assumption is a "missing link" between existing premises and conclusions to validify the argument. Taking the existing premises, there is no "hole" per say in how these rules and facts can result in the conclusion.
If we were to modify premise #3 and say something like "Other members can prostrate themselves [...]", which omits "all other" and "must", then it would be reasonable to bring in an assumption on how else Walt could get the DVC. The "all other" and "must" limit the requirements to only the two presented.
This was my line of thinking too! Thanks for putting it into words.
Does this assume that the only way to get Genie+ is through Disney Vacation Club? Technically, couldn't there be other ways to get Genie+ and this paragraph only outlines the Disney Vacation Club options?
A possible assumption is actually that Walt accessed the Genie+ fast pass through his Disney Vacation Club membership. The premises don't stipulate that you need to be a member to get a fast pass, just how members access fast passes.
It says Disney Vacation club members MUST do 2 or 3, and Walt IS a DVC member. Perhaps someone who is not a DVC member could still access the fast pass through other means, but that is irrelevant in this case since Walt is a member and these requirements apply to all members