I feel 7Sage could do a better job of explaining why Q2 is not an argument, otherwise the explanation is confusing.
Thankfully, I've spoken with my good friend Claude, who says that in the future, I should look for clues to help me determine whether the author is reporting vs speaking from their own point of view.
For example, the passage says:
Scientists theorize...
Scientists concluded...
They further concluded...
These all show how the author is not making an argument or trying to persuade the reader of anything by making their own claim, but they are simply reporting about the scientists' research process and findings.
For this to be an argument, the author would need to be advocating for a position, like "This genetic dating method is reliable" or "These scientists' conclusions are correct."
Instead, the author is neutrally presenting information about what the scientists theorized and concluded.
@Maliikm This is supremely helpful information, thank you! It's unfortunate that this lesson lacked detailed explanation of the ways in which we can identify when the author is/isn't attempting to persuade.
@Maliikm For me Ive been let down on the three versions of this "quiz". On each it seems as if theya re just relying on us finding the word and he doesnt teach why the premise supports the conc. If it has a indicator word, its a conc. IF it doesnt, it isnt. Although I get that learning indicators are important this is very unrealistic and I feel as if we can learn indicators while also learning on these why some were or werent conclusions/premises.
Note to self via Question #2: The author themselves need to make a conclusion, otherwise they are just reporting/relaying the opinions or findings of someone else. "Scientists theorize..." "Scientists conclude...", The author's POV is not mentioned at all here. Don't assume that the scientist's conclusion would be the same as the one the author makes.
I got #2 wrong. Remember, it supposed to be the author's argument, not the scientists. The author is trying to persuade you of something whether their argument is weak, strong or does not have a conclusion.
I also got #2 wrong. I thought the conclusion was "One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species."
These questions are relatively intuitive, leaving out 2 that did not include conclusions... I think I am getting them right because I am relying on indicator words, therefore aiding me in finding the conclusion. I would like to see more practice questions that are not indicator word-heavy.
What I noticed is that conclusions tend to be the author's opinions or beliefs, often mixed with indicator words. This seems like a really fast way to locate conclusions and separate them from premises.
For #2, I got confused thinking the below sentence was the conclusion since the other sentences support it as premises. I then remembered that the goal of every argument is persuasion, which helped a lot, since the author isn't trying to persuade us of anything here.
"Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor."
so in #2 -- I think there was a conclusion but it seems like it was someone else's conclusion. So that means the author did not assert their own conclusion and instead reported someone else's conclusion..and so there is no conclusion...?
I feel like these and the examples before this are an exercise in recognizing indicator words. I've only noticed two questions that did not rely on indicator words. One of those is Q2 where the takeaway is that an author can present someone else's premises and conclusions, but not themselves make an argument.
Having returned to this section to improve my ability to identify premises and conclusions, I'd like to see examples less reliant on indicator words and more on identifying the relationships and support.
I initially thought the 2nd Q is NOT and argument, but then said to myself:
What if I read it like:
Premise [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. 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.]
added in my head: Therefore, =>
Conclusion [One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species]
Support [Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor.]
I guess there are three takeaways:
1- Trust your first instinct
2- Don't add non-existent words to MAKE it an argument
3- That this is a report (which I still have difficulty figuring out the difference)
Simply saying that the question is "reporting" on some findings, would not solve the nature of the question for me. How would you identify an argument from a report?
@AmirAlavi I did the same thing. I think one way to differentiate an argument from the report is like you mentioned in #2 - don't reason with yourself to make it an argument and treat a fact is a fact.
@Foxe The reason why I saw it wasn't an argument is because the writing isn't itself an argument, it's simply describing an argument. Key indicators are "Scientist" or "they concluded" which tells us they are describing something not arguing anything.
@SavanahHoffstein Same! I think this is my main issue in RC when there are multiple paragraphs and you have to find the premises and conclusions to multiple different arguments while also just taking the given information as given information. So tricky to discern the two sometimes.
I got 4/5 only because I was looking too hard into Question #2. I tried too hard to piece together a conclusion, and I ultimately came up with the conclusion being, "......scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago."
I knew that it was extremely weak, but for some reason, my mind thought there was some support structure there.
However, I understand why I'm wrong and that there is no argument here in the question :-\
When I read "The colors used by Michelangelo will be fully restored" and then say to myself, "Why should I believe this?", I do not find "None of the chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the original dyes" really supports that conclusion at all. I say to myself "...so what?"
Is the word hence just carrying the entire argument on its back? Without it, is it not an argument? Sounds like I can get 2 vaguely related sentences and slap a "hence" in there and it'll magically turn it into an argument.
You're right to notice that the premise doesn't support the conclusion very it because it relies on a lot of assumptions. It's clearly indicated as a conclusions with "hence", but I don't think it would be a conclusion without some indication of an inference.
So, for this argument, yes, slapping either a conclusion indicator or a premise indicator (like "since" or "because") is kinda the only thing making this an argument. Otherwise it would just seem like two facts
Your third paragraph is why it's important to retrain your brain to only look at the information provided to you. A majority of the time, none of these will make sense in my opinion.
The point of the skill builder is to strengthen your pattern recognition skills to have a basic understanding of the structure of arguments (at least in my opinion)
number 2 got me...was a good reminder to not coast through the question. I originally misconstrued the authors reporting of the scientists' conclusion as the author's own conclusion which was incorrect
@ChimziChuku As did I. I recalled shortly after recognizing my mistake that the LSAT writers care deeply about what the author of the passage thinks, not necessarily the scientist's thoughts, and subsequently the specific point the author is trying to make.
How can I improve my ability to recognize when the paragraphs have no conclusion? I originally thought the scientists’ statement in Q2 was indicative of a conclusion
I missed q2 cause the author didnt conclude but was highlighting what others, scientists concluded. This is called a 'nested claim' I shoulve got this one correct cause i learned this from The Loophole book. Nested claims are when someone other than the author makes claims and conclusions. This is my sign to pair the 7sage CC and The Loophole Book. If anyone is doing this method or wants to, hit me up to make a study group.
For number 2, when I saw the answer (no argument present ), I realized afterwards that I forced myself to think that there was a conclusion instead of a set of facts due to being uncertain.
I definitely agree! I tried to force myself to determine the premise and conclusion when I was uncertain, but sometimes, there is no premise and conclusion. Know when it's just spitting out facts.
I got Q2 wrong at first too, because despite the warning that not all questions have conclusions, my brain was trying to make it into an argument. In Q2 it's clear that each sentence really stands alone as a fact and the information does not support--relate to--any of the other sentences. I figure that with this question 7Sage is just trying to hone our ability to recognize when arguments are present vs. when they are not. Q2 refers to scientists 'concluding' things, but this is just tricky language to see if we can recognize that just because the word "conclusion" is used in some way, doesn't make it the kind of logical argument conclusion that we are learning to identify.
Question #2 needs a better explanation in the video. Shout out to Maliikm and cluade for the exaplaintion in the comments! ANd the Q#4 could have been explained better. It is an argument! A weak argument but it is an argument.
231 comments
I feel 7Sage could do a better job of explaining why Q2 is not an argument, otherwise the explanation is confusing.
Thankfully, I've spoken with my good friend Claude, who says that in the future, I should look for clues to help me determine whether the author is reporting vs speaking from their own point of view.
For example, the passage says:
Scientists theorize...
Scientists concluded...
They further concluded...
These all show how the author is not making an argument or trying to persuade the reader of anything by making their own claim, but they are simply reporting about the scientists' research process and findings.
For this to be an argument, the author would need to be advocating for a position, like "This genetic dating method is reliable" or "These scientists' conclusions are correct."
Instead, the author is neutrally presenting information about what the scientists theorized and concluded.
@Maliikm this was actually really helpful ty
@Maliikm This is supremely helpful information, thank you! It's unfortunate that this lesson lacked detailed explanation of the ways in which we can identify when the author is/isn't attempting to persuade.
@Maliikm bless u this was actually very helpful :)
@Maliikm For me Ive been let down on the three versions of this "quiz". On each it seems as if theya re just relying on us finding the word and he doesnt teach why the premise supports the conc. If it has a indicator word, its a conc. IF it doesnt, it isnt. Although I get that learning indicators are important this is very unrealistic and I feel as if we can learn indicators while also learning on these why some were or werent conclusions/premises.
@Maliikm slay claude <33
Note to self via Question #2: The author themselves need to make a conclusion, otherwise they are just reporting/relaying the opinions or findings of someone else. "Scientists theorize..." "Scientists conclude...", The author's POV is not mentioned at all here. Don't assume that the scientist's conclusion would be the same as the one the author makes.
@Cee🦋 Thank you Cee!
@Cee🦋 thank you
@Cee🦋 Ooooh I see now, thank you!
@Cee🦋 That’s very helpful to note. Thank you Cee!
@Cee🦋 brilliant! thanks!
@Cee🦋 this one really stumped me until I read this - thank you! :)
@Cee🦋 this is a really good tip
I got #2 wrong. Remember, it supposed to be the author's argument, not the scientists. The author is trying to persuade you of something whether their argument is weak, strong or does not have a conclusion.
I also got #2 wrong. I thought the conclusion was "One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species."
These questions are relatively intuitive, leaving out 2 that did not include conclusions... I think I am getting them right because I am relying on indicator words, therefore aiding me in finding the conclusion. I would like to see more practice questions that are not indicator word-heavy.
What I noticed is that conclusions tend to be the author's opinions or beliefs, often mixed with indicator words. This seems like a really fast way to locate conclusions and separate them from premises.
This is a cool thought. I will be looking for this going forward. Thanks
got 5/5 again the LSAT should fear me now
For #2, I got confused thinking the below sentence was the conclusion since the other sentences support it as premises. I then remembered that the goal of every argument is persuasion, which helped a lot, since the author isn't trying to persuade us of anything here.
"Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor."
so in #2 -- I think there was a conclusion but it seems like it was someone else's conclusion. So that means the author did not assert their own conclusion and instead reported someone else's conclusion..and so there is no conclusion...?
@cworth1512 Yeah, you got it.
I feel like these and the examples before this are an exercise in recognizing indicator words. I've only noticed two questions that did not rely on indicator words. One of those is Q2 where the takeaway is that an author can present someone else's premises and conclusions, but not themselves make an argument.
Having returned to this section to improve my ability to identify premises and conclusions, I'd like to see examples less reliant on indicator words and more on identifying the relationships and support.
4/5
I initially thought the 2nd Q is NOT and argument, but then said to myself:
What if I read it like:
Premise [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. 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.]
added in my head: Therefore, =>
Conclusion [One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species]
Support [Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor.]
I guess there are three takeaways:
1- Trust your first instinct
2- Don't add non-existent words to MAKE it an argument
3- That this is a report (which I still have difficulty figuring out the difference)
Simply saying that the question is "reporting" on some findings, would not solve the nature of the question for me. How would you identify an argument from a report?
Any thoughts ?
@AmirAlavi I did the same thing. I think one way to differentiate an argument from the report is like you mentioned in #2 - don't reason with yourself to make it an argument and treat a fact is a fact.
@AmirAlavi I did that to! oh gosh
The explanation for question 2 kinda sucks
@Foxe agreed
@Foxe The reason why I saw it wasn't an argument is because the writing isn't itself an argument, it's simply describing an argument. Key indicators are "Scientist" or "they concluded" which tells us they are describing something not arguing anything.
Question 2 got me!! It seemed to me like there was some sort of support structure but I guess it was facts and claims and not premise and conclusion.
@SavanahHoffstein Same! I think this is my main issue in RC when there are multiple paragraphs and you have to find the premises and conclusions to multiple different arguments while also just taking the given information as given information. So tricky to discern the two sometimes.
Got all 5 right! Including the non-argument question. Getting better, progress is linear.
They got me question 2 remember the author themself has to draw the conclusion.
@AngelaCMalone Thank you, this is the cleanest way to remember it.
I will admit, question 2 did hurt me lol.
@DJ0819 Me too! I thought the first line was the conclusion and the rest supported it
I got 4/5 only because I was looking too hard into Question #2. I tried too hard to piece together a conclusion, and I ultimately came up with the conclusion being, "......scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago."
I knew that it was extremely weak, but for some reason, my mind thought there was some support structure there.
However, I understand why I'm wrong and that there is no argument here in the question :-\
@jaydenca I thought the exact same thing !
So for #2 can we say that since the author is just restating facts this wouldn't be an argument essentially?
I don't understand how Question 4 is an argument.
When I read "The colors used by Michelangelo will be fully restored" and then say to myself, "Why should I believe this?", I do not find "None of the chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the original dyes" really supports that conclusion at all. I say to myself "...so what?"
Is the word hence just carrying the entire argument on its back? Without it, is it not an argument? Sounds like I can get 2 vaguely related sentences and slap a "hence" in there and it'll magically turn it into an argument.
You're right to notice that the premise doesn't support the conclusion very it because it relies on a lot of assumptions. It's clearly indicated as a conclusions with "hence", but I don't think it would be a conclusion without some indication of an inference.
So, for this argument, yes, slapping either a conclusion indicator or a premise indicator (like "since" or "because") is kinda the only thing making this an argument. Otherwise it would just seem like two facts
Your third paragraph is why it's important to retrain your brain to only look at the information provided to you. A majority of the time, none of these will make sense in my opinion.
The point of the skill builder is to strengthen your pattern recognition skills to have a basic understanding of the structure of arguments (at least in my opinion)
number 2 got me...was a good reminder to not coast through the question. I originally misconstrued the authors reporting of the scientists' conclusion as the author's own conclusion which was incorrect
@ChimziChuku As did I. I recalled shortly after recognizing my mistake that the LSAT writers care deeply about what the author of the passage thinks, not necessarily the scientist's thoughts, and subsequently the specific point the author is trying to make.
4/5, 2 tripped me up
How can I improve my ability to recognize when the paragraphs have no conclusion? I originally thought the scientists’ statement in Q2 was indicative of a conclusion
I missed q2 cause the author didnt conclude but was highlighting what others, scientists concluded. This is called a 'nested claim' I shoulve got this one correct cause i learned this from The Loophole book. Nested claims are when someone other than the author makes claims and conclusions. This is my sign to pair the 7sage CC and The Loophole Book. If anyone is doing this method or wants to, hit me up to make a study group.
@prabh Send you a dm.
@SeedyN I 'm down to study group.
@SeedyN Same here. I'd like to join your study group!
@SalmaAddi Can I join the study group too!??
@SeedyN I'd like to join the study group too please
@SeedyN hi are you still open to having ppl join?
@SeedyN Hello i heard the loophole is good. I would also like to join.
@SeedyN I would also like to join if possible!
@SeedyN Im currently paring Loophole and 7sage!
Is anybody else flying through this? I am not trying to discourage anyone, I just have a tendency to rush and want to pace check myself
I also answered these pretty quickly, so I feel you!
For number 2, when I saw the answer (no argument present ), I realized afterwards that I forced myself to think that there was a conclusion instead of a set of facts due to being uncertain.
I definitely agree! I tried to force myself to determine the premise and conclusion when I was uncertain, but sometimes, there is no premise and conclusion. Know when it's just spitting out facts.
I got Q2 wrong at first too, because despite the warning that not all questions have conclusions, my brain was trying to make it into an argument. In Q2 it's clear that each sentence really stands alone as a fact and the information does not support--relate to--any of the other sentences. I figure that with this question 7Sage is just trying to hone our ability to recognize when arguments are present vs. when they are not. Q2 refers to scientists 'concluding' things, but this is just tricky language to see if we can recognize that just because the word "conclusion" is used in some way, doesn't make it the kind of logical argument conclusion that we are learning to identify.
Question #2 needs a better explanation in the video. Shout out to Maliikm and cluade for the exaplaintion in the comments! ANd the Q#4 could have been explained better. It is an argument! A weak argument but it is an argument.