You're doing amazing and you got this! Believe in yourself and give yourself props every time you show any signs of progress; advocate for yourself fiercely!
I know that we are told indicators may be an ineffective method of identification; however, each question above holds conclusion indicators that are easily recognized.
For the two i didn't answer or missed, I was analyzing the strength of the argument instead of just identifying the premise and conclusion. I need to follow instructions better
Could you say that "Train service suffers when a railroad combines" is a supporting conclusion? It is not the Main Conclusion. But a conclusion that stands on the MC "Therefore, if..."
Analysis - 1: Max is clearly (the adverb clearly indicates opinion) not guilty. If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate (conditional statement). But last week, he asked the police to investigate *(this argument is valid).
2: Cars drive faster on long city blocks than (comparative statement, LB wins) on short city blocks (this is a premise, it is a fact in the world) . Long blocks are thus (conclusion word in the middle of the sentence) more dangerous for pedestrians than (comparative statement, LB wins) short blocks.
3: Train service suffers when a railroad combines (fact of the real world/ premise). By dividing its attention between its freight and commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well (premise). So, if the railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets (main conclusion, the whole argument is designed to support this statement).
4. The store's customers must have been (this is kind of like an embedded indicator of a conclusion) able to buy shirts there at less than the store's cost. After all (premise indicator), the store's competitors claim that the store, in selling off the shirts at those prices, neither made any profit nor broke even.
5. People affected by tritanopia cannot distinguish between blue and green (premise 1). Janice cannot distinguish between blue and green (premise 2). Janice, therefore, is affected by tritanopia (main conclusion, this is an invalid argument, switches necessary and sufficient).
6. The teeth of some mammals show “growth rings” that result from the constant depositing of layers of cementum as opaque bands in summer and translucent bands in winter (okay, this is just a factual statement about the world, no conclusion). Cross sections of pigs' teeth found in an excavated Stone Age trash pit revealed bands of remarkably constant width except that the band deposited last, which was invariably translucent, was only about half the normal width. (Before looking at the answer, I was saying to myself, there is no conclusion in here, but there must be, so I am missing something, nope! No conclusion! Reminder to trust your intuition).
7. The true annual rate of earnings on an interest-bearing account is the annual rate of interest less the annual rate of inflation (factual statement of the world/premise). Consequently, if the rate of inflation drops, the rate of interest can be reduced by an equal amount without there being a change in the true rate of earnings (conclusion, the consequently gives it away, as well remember to ask yourself, why should I believe this ?).
8. Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on investment (a fact about the real world/premise). Hence (conclusion indicator), some of these studies are not reliable (another way of seeing this as the conclusion, maybe ask yourself, could this be argued against? It could!).
9. Before the banks raised their interest rates, people on average incomes could almost afford a mortgage for an amount twice their salary (fact about the world, referring back to history, expect the conclusion to state something about how history is different now), hence the rate increase has now put mortgages beyond their reach (exactly what we expected, this is the main contention of the argument).
10. No fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in this bottle labeled “vinegar” was added to powder from this box labeled “baking soda." (this is a phenomenon that occurred that might merit some type of explanation/hypothesis/main contention) When an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda, the resulting mixture fizzes (this is a premise/ this is the paradox that the argument will hypothesize about), so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled (so indicates a conclusion word, and this is clearly the authors hypothesis about the surprising results of the situation).
11. When a large business with multiple, linked computer systems uses identical operating system software on all of its computers, a computer vandal who gains access to one computer automatically has access to the data on all the computers (this is a fact, hypothetical situation/premise). Using a program known as a “virus,” the vandal can then destroy much of the data on all the computers (elaboration of the premise, we are still in the premise world). If such a business introduced minor variations into its operating system software, unauthorized access to all the computers at the same time could be virtually eliminated (conditional statement that will most likely allow the author to conclude for the sufficient to be satisfied since it would lead beneficial results). So, it is advisable for businesses to implement such variations (Exactly, this is the main point!). Furthermore, variations in operating system software can be created without any loss of computer compatibility to the business (this is a premise, the indicator "furthermore" gives it away, but it could throw us off because it is not grouped with the other premises, however, it could very easily be up there, but it is not).
(Do not change your view on premises and conclusions based off their location in the argument).
12. One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species. Scientists theorize (this is other people argument, not the author's main point, be on the look out for that) that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor. After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago (okay, so this makes the previous sentences the scientists intermediate conclusion to support this conclusion that came about based off research). They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears (main conclusion, the whole argument is meant to support this).
13. When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D. 1519, he observed the inhabitants playing a ceremonial game with a rubber ball (premise 1, this is a fact). The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico began to use rubber around A.D. 1000 (some time periods here, a conclusion will probably conclude something from these time periods). Thus, we can be sure that the game must have originated sometime between approximately A.D. 1000 and Cortez's arrival (exactly what we expected, not a perfect argument, but seems strong at first glance!).
14. The colors used by Michelangelo will be fully restored (why should I believe this author? Seems like this main point that needs support, that is exactly what it is) because (okay, now you are going to give me a reason) none of the chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the original dyes (premise).
15. The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking (notice how this is in the past tense, not a conclusion, just a observation, potential premise). Clearly (indicator), then, to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation (easy! this is the main contention of the argument, the first sentence lends support to this!).
Yes, really enjoyed reading your notes. I took my time and went through this 3x as it seems basic at first glance but really is so important ! Thank you for sharing
By the way for Q8: "Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on investment (a fact about the real world/premise). Hence (conclusion indicator), some of these studies are not reliable (another way of seeing this as the conclusion, maybe ask yourself, could this be argued against? It could!)."
Is it correct that on the LSAT, what makes something a conclusion is the author's intent to prove it, rather than just the logical relationship between statements?
In other words, does a word like "therefore" not just indicate a conclusion, but actually create the conclusion by demonstrating the author's intent to argue for that claim?
For example, without "therefore" or similar indicators, a passage might just be presenting facts with no argumentative structure—even if we could theoretically invent premises that would support one of those facts.
Just a helpful tip, if you guys see words/phrases like "therefore", "thus", "because of this", the conclusion more often than not comes after these words and phrases. Those signify "author opinion," which is more often than not what the "goal" or "conclusion" is, at least in these instances and practice problems I have interacted with. Hope this helps!
For 11.1, I do believe there was a conclusion to be proved "Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor." why would we not consider this as a conclusion that needs to be supported? And their observations are the support?
I also had this! I think because the entire paragraph seems to fall under the "some people say" category & nothing is being necessarily argued to support that sentence as a conclusion. There is no argument present from the author, just a bunch of scientists say this & scientists say that.
I unfortunately got tripped up with the quiz instructions and was suspicious of every question being an argument trap. Meaning its going to use the indicator words to trick me into thinking its an argument, but my mistake was trying to analyze the argument to identify one. Wrong pattern of thinking and it led to me being unnesccesarily confused and skeptical.
I know "Consequently" is a strong conclusion indicator but for question 5 i flipped the premise and conclusion bc it made more sense to me that customers being able to buy shirts at less than the store's cost would result in neither making profit or breaking even ..
These would be more helpful if their order was switched around. There were multiple questions in a row with the exact same content and format, just with different details. When they were put all together, it made the exercise so easy it was almost pointless.
I think that's the point. This exercise is trying to make the arguments painfully easy so that you are able to utilize some of the tools you were taught, in a straightforward manner. Argument analysis gets so ridiculously hard on the lsat that you will often have no idea what is going on. This page is meant to start developing intuition. So make sure you are giving each passage your full attention and actively using the methods. It's repetitive, but only because that is really the most effective way of developing an intuitive affinity towards this sort of thing. In the words of someone who knew how to get good at stuff, "drill, drill, drill."
Why does the goal suddenly change from "Identify and bracket the premise and conclusion" to "background information and observation" in 6.1 then right back to "identify and bracket..." in 7.1 and on? I think a distinction must be made. Also, like the other replies state, this is a lot of repetitive questions. I get repeating things to get the idea, but some are just the same thing with one or two words changed. I like the idea, but if this were maybe 20 questions max (where each question asked something different, or at least every other question, rather than restating the question before it) this would be a great quiz.
Additionally, question 11.1 is problematic. There's no argument, but there IS a premise and conclusion. I do not believe it to be the author's conclusion as they state "after comparing genetic material...they concluded". If a trick question was going to be thrown in, I think discussion on the possibility of no argument should be discussed a bit more in previous lessons.
Yup, I hear you. In the current version, I can only show you the full set of quiz questions. But I don't mean that you ought to do all of them. You should only do as many as you feel like you need to. Once you get the hang of it, move on!
We're working on a more advanced quiz feature that will hopefully solve this problem by showing you only one question at a time and based on your answers, suggest whether you should do more or move onto the next lesson.
Update: I renumbered the quiz questions to make it more clear which questions are variants that you should do only if you want more practice. For example, if 1.1 was fine, then move onto 2.1. If 1.1 was challenging, then move onto 1.2, then 1.3, so on.
For Q2, why is the conclusion not just "Max is not guilty" but instead "his asking the police to investigate show that he is not guilty"? Wouldn't his asking the police to investigate be used as evidence for why he isn't guilty?
@anamat I am by no means an expert but I looked and could not find an answer for the question you are asking so I will try to provide one!
We are examining the relationships between statements here. The conclusion will be supported by the premises presented in the argument. The conclusion can often times be found by asking just one simple question, "Why should I believe that?", or "What evidence is given to support this statement?". In this case, the conclusion is that Max having asked the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty. Why should I believe that? Because if Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate!
The argument is not a very good one, which actually often times makes the conclusion less obvious, but in this case, the idea that he would object to investigation if he were guilty is supporting the claim that he is not guilty, because he did not object to investigation.
I got a 5/5, but I still feel that number 5's argument as rather weak. I.e., the support was weak. I noticed that others here feel similarly, so I ask that an instructor explain this to me. Either to inform me that I am wrong and explain why, or to validate my claim and explain why.
5/5! i always like to go through line by line and ask "ok why" or "this is happening because of this" referencing other parts of the argument. the "why should i believe this" method has been so helpful!
324 comments
You're doing amazing and you got this! Believe in yourself and give yourself props every time you show any signs of progress; advocate for yourself fiercely!
5/5 lets gooo 180 LSAT
@GraceEaton lol
finally got all of them right for once
@KeziaH19 I literally felt this. I felt so achieved.
I know that we are told indicators may be an ineffective method of identification; however, each question above holds conclusion indicators that are easily recognized.
For the two i didn't answer or missed, I was analyzing the strength of the argument instead of just identifying the premise and conclusion. I need to follow instructions better
Could you say that "Train service suffers when a railroad combines" is a supporting conclusion? It is not the Main Conclusion. But a conclusion that stands on the MC "Therefore, if..."
@Gregmjr That's also what I thought. It seems like a claim that can stand on its own and be supported by the following sentence/premise.
5/5!!! 🤫🧏♂️
Analysis - 1: Max is clearly (the adverb clearly indicates opinion) not guilty. If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate (conditional statement). But last week, he asked the police to investigate *(this argument is valid).
2: Cars drive faster on long city blocks than (comparative statement, LB wins) on short city blocks (this is a premise, it is a fact in the world) . Long blocks are thus (conclusion word in the middle of the sentence) more dangerous for pedestrians than (comparative statement, LB wins) short blocks.
3: Train service suffers when a railroad combines (fact of the real world/ premise). By dividing its attention between its freight and commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well (premise). So, if the railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets (main conclusion, the whole argument is designed to support this statement).
4. The store's customers must have been (this is kind of like an embedded indicator of a conclusion) able to buy shirts there at less than the store's cost. After all (premise indicator), the store's competitors claim that the store, in selling off the shirts at those prices, neither made any profit nor broke even.
5. People affected by tritanopia cannot distinguish between blue and green (premise 1). Janice cannot distinguish between blue and green (premise 2). Janice, therefore, is affected by tritanopia (main conclusion, this is an invalid argument, switches necessary and sufficient).
6. The teeth of some mammals show “growth rings” that result from the constant depositing of layers of cementum as opaque bands in summer and translucent bands in winter (okay, this is just a factual statement about the world, no conclusion). Cross sections of pigs' teeth found in an excavated Stone Age trash pit revealed bands of remarkably constant width except that the band deposited last, which was invariably translucent, was only about half the normal width. (Before looking at the answer, I was saying to myself, there is no conclusion in here, but there must be, so I am missing something, nope! No conclusion! Reminder to trust your intuition).
7. The true annual rate of earnings on an interest-bearing account is the annual rate of interest less the annual rate of inflation (factual statement of the world/premise). Consequently, if the rate of inflation drops, the rate of interest can be reduced by an equal amount without there being a change in the true rate of earnings (conclusion, the consequently gives it away, as well remember to ask yourself, why should I believe this ?).
8. Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on investment (a fact about the real world/premise). Hence (conclusion indicator), some of these studies are not reliable (another way of seeing this as the conclusion, maybe ask yourself, could this be argued against? It could!).
9. Before the banks raised their interest rates, people on average incomes could almost afford a mortgage for an amount twice their salary (fact about the world, referring back to history, expect the conclusion to state something about how history is different now), hence the rate increase has now put mortgages beyond their reach (exactly what we expected, this is the main contention of the argument).
10. No fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in this bottle labeled “vinegar” was added to powder from this box labeled “baking soda." (this is a phenomenon that occurred that might merit some type of explanation/hypothesis/main contention) When an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda, the resulting mixture fizzes (this is a premise/ this is the paradox that the argument will hypothesize about), so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled (so indicates a conclusion word, and this is clearly the authors hypothesis about the surprising results of the situation).
11. When a large business with multiple, linked computer systems uses identical operating system software on all of its computers, a computer vandal who gains access to one computer automatically has access to the data on all the computers (this is a fact, hypothetical situation/premise). Using a program known as a “virus,” the vandal can then destroy much of the data on all the computers (elaboration of the premise, we are still in the premise world). If such a business introduced minor variations into its operating system software, unauthorized access to all the computers at the same time could be virtually eliminated (conditional statement that will most likely allow the author to conclude for the sufficient to be satisfied since it would lead beneficial results). So, it is advisable for businesses to implement such variations (Exactly, this is the main point!). Furthermore, variations in operating system software can be created without any loss of computer compatibility to the business (this is a premise, the indicator "furthermore" gives it away, but it could throw us off because it is not grouped with the other premises, however, it could very easily be up there, but it is not).
(Do not change your view on premises and conclusions based off their location in the argument).
12. One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species. Scientists theorize (this is other people argument, not the author's main point, be on the look out for that) that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor. After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago (okay, so this makes the previous sentences the scientists intermediate conclusion to support this conclusion that came about based off research). They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears (main conclusion, the whole argument is meant to support this).
13. When Cortez arrived in Mexico in A.D. 1519, he observed the inhabitants playing a ceremonial game with a rubber ball (premise 1, this is a fact). The pre-Columbian inhabitants of Mexico began to use rubber around A.D. 1000 (some time periods here, a conclusion will probably conclude something from these time periods). Thus, we can be sure that the game must have originated sometime between approximately A.D. 1000 and Cortez's arrival (exactly what we expected, not a perfect argument, but seems strong at first glance!).
14. The colors used by Michelangelo will be fully restored (why should I believe this author? Seems like this main point that needs support, that is exactly what it is) because (okay, now you are going to give me a reason) none of the chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the original dyes (premise).
15. The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking (notice how this is in the past tense, not a conclusion, just a observation, potential premise). Clearly (indicator), then, to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation (easy! this is the main contention of the argument, the first sentence lends support to this!).
Yes, really enjoyed reading your notes. I took my time and went through this 3x as it seems basic at first glance but really is so important ! Thank you for sharing
This is insane! So much help, appreciated ;)
By the way for Q8: "Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on investment (a fact about the real world/premise). Hence (conclusion indicator), some of these studies are not reliable (another way of seeing this as the conclusion, maybe ask yourself, could this be argued against? It could!)."
How would you argue against the conclusion?
Hey Preston. Loving the way you study and think about the material. Can I contact you to ask about what your study looks like?
@prestonbigley759 bro is goated atp
Is it correct that on the LSAT, what makes something a conclusion is the author's intent to prove it, rather than just the logical relationship between statements?
In other words, does a word like "therefore" not just indicate a conclusion, but actually create the conclusion by demonstrating the author's intent to argue for that claim?
For example, without "therefore" or similar indicators, a passage might just be presenting facts with no argumentative structure—even if we could theoretically invent premises that would support one of those facts.
@arose Yes, that's correct. Sometimes the logical relationship between statements indicates an intent to support one by the other, too.
5/5, lets gooo! We got this yall
i finally got something right! 5/5 wooooo hooo me!
Just a helpful tip, if you guys see words/phrases like "therefore", "thus", "because of this", the conclusion more often than not comes after these words and phrases. Those signify "author opinion," which is more often than not what the "goal" or "conclusion" is, at least in these instances and practice problems I have interacted with. Hope this helps!
5/5 love the get to the point and then why should I believe this "point"
For 11.1, I do believe there was a conclusion to be proved "Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor." why would we not consider this as a conclusion that needs to be supported? And their observations are the support?
#help (Added by Admin)
I also had this! I think because the entire paragraph seems to fall under the "some people say" category & nothing is being necessarily argued to support that sentence as a conclusion. There is no argument present from the author, just a bunch of scientists say this & scientists say that.
I had the same thought, and I am wondering why that's not a conclusion too
I had this as well #feedback
Agreed. I think it is still the conclusion but just not listed in the answer.
I unfortunately got tripped up with the quiz instructions and was suspicious of every question being an argument trap. Meaning its going to use the indicator words to trick me into thinking its an argument, but my mistake was trying to analyze the argument to identify one. Wrong pattern of thinking and it led to me being unnesccesarily confused and skeptical.
@safriyieb literally me.
@safriyieb Lol same
5/5 lets gooooo
I know "Consequently" is a strong conclusion indicator but for question 5 i flipped the premise and conclusion bc it made more sense to me that customers being able to buy shirts at less than the store's cost would result in neither making profit or breaking even ..
These would be more helpful if their order was switched around. There were multiple questions in a row with the exact same content and format, just with different details. When they were put all together, it made the exercise so easy it was almost pointless.
I think that's the point. This exercise is trying to make the arguments painfully easy so that you are able to utilize some of the tools you were taught, in a straightforward manner. Argument analysis gets so ridiculously hard on the lsat that you will often have no idea what is going on. This page is meant to start developing intuition. So make sure you are giving each passage your full attention and actively using the methods. It's repetitive, but only because that is really the most effective way of developing an intuitive affinity towards this sort of thing. In the words of someone who knew how to get good at stuff, "drill, drill, drill."
Why does the goal suddenly change from "Identify and bracket the premise and conclusion" to "background information and observation" in 6.1 then right back to "identify and bracket..." in 7.1 and on? I think a distinction must be made. Also, like the other replies state, this is a lot of repetitive questions. I get repeating things to get the idea, but some are just the same thing with one or two words changed. I like the idea, but if this were maybe 20 questions max (where each question asked something different, or at least every other question, rather than restating the question before it) this would be a great quiz.
Additionally, question 11.1 is problematic. There's no argument, but there IS a premise and conclusion. I do not believe it to be the author's conclusion as they state "after comparing genetic material...they concluded". If a trick question was going to be thrown in, I think discussion on the possibility of no argument should be discussed a bit more in previous lessons.
Exactly, why is there background information and observation when we only reviewed premise and conclusion.
Could this quiz be made just a bit shorter? 41 questions seem a bit extreme.
Yup, I hear you. In the current version, I can only show you the full set of quiz questions. But I don't mean that you ought to do all of them. You should only do as many as you feel like you need to. Once you get the hang of it, move on!
We're working on a more advanced quiz feature that will hopefully solve this problem by showing you only one question at a time and based on your answers, suggest whether you should do more or move onto the next lesson.
Update: I renumbered the quiz questions to make it more clear which questions are variants that you should do only if you want more practice. For example, if 1.1 was fine, then move onto 2.1. If 1.1 was challenging, then move onto 1.2, then 1.3, so on.
For Q2, why is the conclusion not just "Max is not guilty" but instead "his asking the police to investigate show that he is not guilty"? Wouldn't his asking the police to investigate be used as evidence for why he isn't guilty?
@anamat I am by no means an expert but I looked and could not find an answer for the question you are asking so I will try to provide one!
We are examining the relationships between statements here. The conclusion will be supported by the premises presented in the argument. The conclusion can often times be found by asking just one simple question, "Why should I believe that?", or "What evidence is given to support this statement?". In this case, the conclusion is that Max having asked the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty. Why should I believe that? Because if Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate!
The argument is not a very good one, which actually often times makes the conclusion less obvious, but in this case, the idea that he would object to investigation if he were guilty is supporting the claim that he is not guilty, because he did not object to investigation.
Hope that clears it up a bit!
@EFlat10 it does thank you!!
I got a 5/5, but I still feel that number 5's argument as rather weak. I.e., the support was weak. I noticed that others here feel similarly, so I ask that an instructor explain this to me. Either to inform me that I am wrong and explain why, or to validate my claim and explain why.
Big preesh if you can help.
I always get so excited when I get these right haha!! 5/5!!
5/5! i always like to go through line by line and ask "ok why" or "this is happening because of this" referencing other parts of the argument. the "why should i believe this" method has been so helpful!
5/5 lets goooo