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.
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.
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.
The method that has helped me the most is what I call the “therefore” method. If the argument has 3 claims (A, B, C), you can test which way the support flows by stating to yourself, “A, therefore B”. If that framing follows logically, then you know that B is closer to the conclusion than A is. I really struggled with establishing flow of support when I started, but this method has helped me a lot.
To extend the idea:
A, therefore B ✅ A supports B
A, therefore C ❎ A does not support C
C, therefore B ✅ C supports B
The chain of support ends at B. B is the conclusion. You can also use this to determine if there are sub-conclusions. Like if C supports A, then A may be a sub-conclusion supported by C, and there is a possibility for assumptions to link premise C and sub-conclusion A.
“Chocolate is better for you than gummy bears [A], so you should choose chocolate instead of gummy bears when getting a treat [B]. After all, chocolate has beneficial compounds that gummy bears lack [C].”
C therefore A therefore B is the best way to frame it. You can also swip-swap the claims around if it’s not quite clicking. Hope this helps some other folks who also have conclusion confusion!
@TobiStein this is sooo good! BUT, since you used the indicators so and after all would it not be less time consuming to identify those in complex questions?
@TOMCRUISE The problem I find with the indicators is that for any argument structure more complicated than premise -> conclusion, they will start to break down. For instance, any argument with a major premise/subconclusion is liable to have "so" or "therefore" or "thus" pointing to the major premise. If you go solely based on indicators, then you can more easily mistake the major premise for the conclusion of the argument as a whole. Focusing on the ideas themselves and which ones support the others I find to be more consistent. And in reality we might not see these indicators. Like JY says, any list of indicators will be both over- and underinclusive. If the goal is to not just win the LSAT, but become a better arguer (and eventually attorney), then moving on from word matching to understanding the argument holistically is an important step we should all be taking.
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)
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!
that can help but as he said, the list is under-inclusive and it's impossible to write down all the indicators. but it could be a start, you could try memorizing the most frequently used indicators!
Definitely. Which is why the placement of any indicator is very important, and we shouldn't declare something a conclusion just because there's an indicator present.
Do you think that "given that" could also function as a premise indicator? For example, you could say: "Not all mammals are suitable as pets, given that tigers are aggressive and can injure people."
yes, that's why it's under premise indicator. it's a conclusion indicator if it's directly followed by a comma, e.g. "given that, not all mammals are suitable as pets."
as a premise indicator, it's: "given that tigers are aggressive, not all mammals are suitable as pets"
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?
For me, I think the largest takeaway for complex questions is the why should I believe you strategy. From the practice questions I've done so far, sometimes the background info can be really long, or the conclusion can be mixed into several premises. I think strategy number two is good for the cases where conclusions aren't obvious.
70 comments
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.
great comment as usual
You'll be a great attorney one day!
I appreciate it 💪💪
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
Epic. lol. I’m memorizing this song today, it’s perfection.
Guy is spittin
Bro is spittin
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.
wait i love this, im going to try this
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.
The method that has helped me the most is what I call the “therefore” method. If the argument has 3 claims (A, B, C), you can test which way the support flows by stating to yourself, “A, therefore B”. If that framing follows logically, then you know that B is closer to the conclusion than A is. I really struggled with establishing flow of support when I started, but this method has helped me a lot.
To extend the idea:
A, therefore B ✅ A supports B
A, therefore C ❎ A does not support C
C, therefore B ✅ C supports B
The chain of support ends at B. B is the conclusion. You can also use this to determine if there are sub-conclusions. Like if C supports A, then A may be a sub-conclusion supported by C, and there is a possibility for assumptions to link premise C and sub-conclusion A.
“Chocolate is better for you than gummy bears [A], so you should choose chocolate instead of gummy bears when getting a treat [B]. After all, chocolate has beneficial compounds that gummy bears lack [C].”
C therefore A therefore B is the best way to frame it. You can also swip-swap the claims around if it’s not quite clicking. Hope this helps some other folks who also have conclusion confusion!
@TobiStein this is SO helpul!! Thank you
@TobiStein this is sooo good! BUT, since you used the indicators so and after all would it not be less time consuming to identify those in complex questions?
@TOMCRUISE The problem I find with the indicators is that for any argument structure more complicated than premise -> conclusion, they will start to break down. For instance, any argument with a major premise/subconclusion is liable to have "so" or "therefore" or "thus" pointing to the major premise. If you go solely based on indicators, then you can more easily mistake the major premise for the conclusion of the argument as a whole. Focusing on the ideas themselves and which ones support the others I find to be more consistent. And in reality we might not see these indicators. Like JY says, any list of indicators will be both over- and underinclusive. If the goal is to not just win the LSAT, but become a better arguer (and eventually attorney), then moving on from word matching to understanding the argument holistically is an important step we should all be taking.
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)
you are exactly right!
This is such a useful way in identifying the premise and the conclusion. Thanks so much for this.
Get to the point ---- find the conclusion
Why should i believe this claim --- like why?
Indicators --- signs from heaven
So in theory, you could read a completely false argument in reality but if the premises support the conclusion, it makes the argument strong?
"If you can play it slowly, then you can play it quickly."
- Twoset Violin
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!
@danjpeach96 Thank you! I was about to write it all down but you saved me!
roses are red,
the indicator list is long
i just want to get to the point,
to find out whether i am wrong
@yesterdayseeker this was beautifully written hahaha
Do you suggest that we make flashcardsof indicators?
#help (Added by Admin)
that can help but as he said, the list is under-inclusive and it's impossible to write down all the indicators. but it could be a start, you could try memorizing the most frequently used indicators!
"Given that" could also be a conclusion indicator, right? Essentially if it's saying "Given that previous information, this is the conclusion."
Definitely. Which is why the placement of any indicator is very important, and we shouldn't declare something a conclusion just because there's an indicator present.
Do you think that "given that" could also function as a premise indicator? For example, you could say: "Not all mammals are suitable as pets, given that tigers are aggressive and can injure people."
yes, that's why it's under premise indicator. it's a conclusion indicator if it's directly followed by a comma, e.g. "given that, not all mammals are suitable as pets."
as a premise indicator, it's: "given that tigers are aggressive, not all mammals are suitable as pets"
Makes sense, I should have watched the video before replying!
yeah Im not remembering any of those words lol there's has to be a different way..... please god help me with this hard times
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?
The last paragraph in the transcript ("Interrupting Indicators") is not said in the video. #feedback
For me, I think the largest takeaway for complex questions is the why should I believe you strategy. From the practice questions I've done so far, sometimes the background info can be really long, or the conclusion can be mixed into several premises. I think strategy number two is good for the cases where conclusions aren't obvious.
needed this!
This has to be the most comprehensive work I've ever done on conclusions and premises. Thank you 7Sage.
I cannot reference my own knowledge.
You have to point to the information in the passage.
- If the tiger phrase was the conclusion the mammal phrase does not really support it
- but if you flip it around the tiger phrade does support the mammal phrase
Good point at the end - indicators, if used, won't always be neatly placed for you
WOW
Key note about indicators:
afterall: premise
so: conclusion
To identify conclusion and premise:
what is the ONE thing the author is trying to convince you of or trying to make you believe? = conclusion
how is it supported? why should we believe? = conclusion (supported by premise)
Indicator words
Would "however" indicate a premise or a conclusion, or both depending on the context?
#help (Added by Admin)