Is it possible for the conclusion to be in the middle of an argument? If so, how would that look when determining the premises and conclusion using these methods?
just wanted to put it out there, the LSAT is TRYING to trick/test you. So we can assume (lol) that indicator words can sometimes confuse you more then actually help you. BE CAREFUL folks!
Not sure if it's just me - but I feel like I'm psyched out of using the indicators as a viable strategy after watching the end of that lesson. The "why should I believe this claim" seemed like a much more successful pathway to be able to identify premises and conclusions; am I the only one feeling that?
Something that helps me to identify the conclusion is by using the because test, so putting the two things you are debating with the because in the middle. EX: The lamp is on because the electricity plug works which sounds wrong, so if you flip it: the electricity plug works because the the lamp is on, you can identify it as conclusion, because, premise.
I have a strategy for determining the conclusion. I pretend that I am a journalist and my strict editor is forcing me to reduce the length of my story (lsat excerpt) to one sentence by eliminating the other sentences. By shrinking the excerpt down the excerpt to its most important sentence/phrase, it pretty consistently lands me on the conclusion.
Is it fairly correct for me to say that the sentence that answers my question of "What does the author want me to believe" = the conclusion and the sentence(s) that answers my question of "why should I believe this" indicates premises that support the conclusion in the passage? #help (Added by admin)
The intuition of conclusion/premise identification is far more important than spotting indicators. The difficulties in the LSAT is subtleness, rely on intuition first and then use indicators to assist you in understanding argument structure. If you rely on indicators entirely, the arguments in the LSAT will eat you alive because there is a difference between an argument's overall support structure and the structure of arguments within the overall argument.
Confusing right? It should be! How do we combat that confusion? Increase intuition.
For example, look what I wrote in bold, what is my overall conclusion? There is not one conclusion indicator, but the overall conclusion should be clear. The intuition of conclusion/premise identification is far more important than spotting indicators. The rest of the paragraph is meant to support that statement.
Now, what about a sub-conclusion, is that present in the bold argument above? Yes! The difficulties in the LSAT is subtleness, rely on intuition first and then use indicators to assist you in understanding argument structure. Why should I believe this? Well, "if you rely on indicators entirely, the arguments in the LSAT will eat you alive because there is a difference between an argument's overall support structure and the structure of arguments within the overall argument."
What a work of beautiful chaos. Now imagine scanning for indicators. The chaos would belike parsing you way through a hurricane. Rather, let your intuition get you to the eye of the hurricane (where there is calmness), and use indicators as directional marks for guidance.
Let's break down each method described by JY:
Just get to the point. Here are my thoughts, start reading outside LAST. For example, I am currently reading Churchill: A Biography by Roy Jenkins. It is a pretty tough read; however, it has been an incredible device for me to take that next step of knowing the point. Each page, paragraph, and even sentence has a purpose to the purpose to what Jenkins is arguing on any given topic. The words in that book are tough. However, I notice that I can stay right along the author by constantly asking myself, sir, what do you want me to take away from this chapter, page, paragraph? It is a continuous drill.
Why should I believe this claim?
Okay, this is one is incredibly efficient, but it is essential that you use it in the right context. This is most appropriately used when you have a contender of the conclusion of a passage and you want to confirm or rid your belief. Rather, this is not something you want to be doing for every sentence while reading elaborate arguments or reading comprehension. This is a good device to use when you have to stop and pause to understand the argument. So use this method effectively!
Indicators.
For memorizing indicator words, find the words that don't immediately strike you as conclusion words and focus on those. For example, for me, words like therefore, consequently, so, as a result, hence, we made conclude are easier for me to understand. However, recently, I have made an effort to further my sensitivity for words such as, clearly, it follows that, accordingly, it entails, we may infer that, it implies that, it must be that, that is why. Sometimes, indicators in the form of a phrase can give me trouble.
Same with premise indicators: Words such as for, since, because are easy for me. While words and phrases such as given that, seeing that, for the reason that, owing to, as indicated by, after all, on the grounds that are premise indicators I need more practice with.
LASTLY. the LSAC puts indicators in the middle of sentences all the time! Be on the look out for that.
54
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!
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.
41 comments
I feel like "after all" seems more like a conclusion indicator than a premise indicator?
Is the list of indicators here exhaustive?
"Given that" could also be a conclusion indicator, right? Essentially if it's saying "Given that previous information, this is the conclusion."
would it be in my best interest to sit and study all the indicator words? or would that be a waste of time?
Is it possible for the conclusion to be in the middle of an argument? If so, how would that look when determining the premises and conclusion using these methods?
just wanted to put it out there, the LSAT is TRYING to trick/test you. So we can assume (lol) that indicator words can sometimes confuse you more then actually help you. BE CAREFUL folks!
Good point at the end - indicators, if used, won't always be neatly placed for you
Not sure if it's just me - but I feel like I'm psyched out of using the indicators as a viable strategy after watching the end of that lesson. The "why should I believe this claim" seemed like a much more successful pathway to be able to identify premises and conclusions; am I the only one feeling that?
Something that helps me to identify the conclusion is by using the because test, so putting the two things you are debating with the because in the middle. EX: The lamp is on because the electricity plug works which sounds wrong, so if you flip it: the electricity plug works because the the lamp is on, you can identify it as conclusion, because, premise.
I have a strategy for determining the conclusion. I pretend that I am a journalist and my strict editor is forcing me to reduce the length of my story (lsat excerpt) to one sentence by eliminating the other sentences. By shrinking the excerpt down the excerpt to its most important sentence/phrase, it pretty consistently lands me on the conclusion.
"If you can play it slowly, then you can play it quickly."
- Twoset Violin
The last paragraph in the transcript ("Interrupting Indicators") is not said in the video. #feedback
Is it fairly correct for me to say that the sentence that answers my question of "What does the author want me to believe" = the conclusion and the sentence(s) that answers my question of "why should I believe this" indicates premises that support the conclusion in the passage? #help (Added by admin)
Do you suggest that we make flashcardsof indicators?
#help (Added by Admin)
to the tune of yankee doodle
Consequently therefore so
It follows that is why
As a result clearly
It entails we may conclude
Accordingly hence thus
It must be that we may infer
It implies that these are the
Conclusion indicators
Would "however" indicate a premise or a conclusion, or both depending on the context?
#help (Added by Admin)
Hi 7Sage - could you please provide an example of the following. Thanks!
"Words or phrases usually followed by a premise but also contain a conclusion:
1. for
2. since
3. because"
WOW
The intuition of conclusion/premise identification is far more important than spotting indicators. The difficulties in the LSAT is subtleness, rely on intuition first and then use indicators to assist you in understanding argument structure. If you rely on indicators entirely, the arguments in the LSAT will eat you alive because there is a difference between an argument's overall support structure and the structure of arguments within the overall argument.
Confusing right? It should be! How do we combat that confusion? Increase intuition.
For example, look what I wrote in bold, what is my overall conclusion? There is not one conclusion indicator, but the overall conclusion should be clear. The intuition of conclusion/premise identification is far more important than spotting indicators. The rest of the paragraph is meant to support that statement.
Now, what about a sub-conclusion, is that present in the bold argument above? Yes! The difficulties in the LSAT is subtleness, rely on intuition first and then use indicators to assist you in understanding argument structure. Why should I believe this? Well, "if you rely on indicators entirely, the arguments in the LSAT will eat you alive because there is a difference between an argument's overall support structure and the structure of arguments within the overall argument."
What a work of beautiful chaos. Now imagine scanning for indicators. The chaos would belike parsing you way through a hurricane. Rather, let your intuition get you to the eye of the hurricane (where there is calmness), and use indicators as directional marks for guidance.
Let's break down each method described by JY:
Just get to the point. Here are my thoughts, start reading outside LAST. For example, I am currently reading Churchill: A Biography by Roy Jenkins. It is a pretty tough read; however, it has been an incredible device for me to take that next step of knowing the point. Each page, paragraph, and even sentence has a purpose to the purpose to what Jenkins is arguing on any given topic. The words in that book are tough. However, I notice that I can stay right along the author by constantly asking myself, sir, what do you want me to take away from this chapter, page, paragraph? It is a continuous drill.
Why should I believe this claim?
Okay, this is one is incredibly efficient, but it is essential that you use it in the right context. This is most appropriately used when you have a contender of the conclusion of a passage and you want to confirm or rid your belief. Rather, this is not something you want to be doing for every sentence while reading elaborate arguments or reading comprehension. This is a good device to use when you have to stop and pause to understand the argument. So use this method effectively!
Indicators.
For memorizing indicator words, find the words that don't immediately strike you as conclusion words and focus on those. For example, for me, words like therefore, consequently, so, as a result, hence, we made conclude are easier for me to understand. However, recently, I have made an effort to further my sensitivity for words such as, clearly, it follows that, accordingly, it entails, we may infer that, it implies that, it must be that, that is why. Sometimes, indicators in the form of a phrase can give me trouble.
Same with premise indicators: Words such as for, since, because are easy for me. While words and phrases such as given that, seeing that, for the reason that, owing to, as indicated by, after all, on the grounds that are premise indicators I need more practice with.
LASTLY. the LSAC puts indicators in the middle of sentences all the time! Be on the look out for that.