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!
I’m sure there is benefit to memorizing the words that signal to a conclusion, premise, or premise but also a contain a conclusion, but is it a good use 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!
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)
Would "however" indicate a premise or a conclusion, or both depending on the context?
#help (Added by Admin)
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
54 comments
very helpful!
this is so helpful THANK YOU SO MUCH!
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!
do you think this "theory" information we are learning is mainly being applied to logical reasoning, or is it also applied to reading comprehension?
I’m sure there is benefit to memorizing the words that signal to a conclusion, premise, or premise but also a contain a conclusion, but is it a good use of time?
This has to be the most comprehensive work I've ever done on conclusions and premises. Thank you 7Sage.
So in theory, you could read a completely false argument in reality but if the premises support the conclusion, it makes the argument strong?
premise Not every mammal is a good pet.
Support Because…your pet tiger is going to maul your face.
Conclusion Clearly mammals can't be considered good pets.
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
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)