I thought so at first, but that is one of the questions where you have to kind of really comprehend the premises in order to get the conclusion. Its basically saying they found a method to gain accurate dates based on decomposing remnants (200,000 yrs), and that in cooler regions, remnants decompose much slower, therefore in cooler regions they can date back way further (1 mil yrs). worded more like that, it i easy to identify as an argument but I guess it's meant to trip us up.
@sweetface7 I disagree because there is no support for why "1 million" is cited. We would need to know that 1 million is accounted for - had a premisal "why" - in order for this to be an actual conclusion, unless the 'support' is so weak that this would qualify for a conclusion - which it apparently does.
@jayprev97 I would have to disagree because thinking back to our ways to identify an argument "just get to the point". What out of all this information did the author intend you to remember. As well there is alot of filler language in questions for example you might read it as such Measurements of the extent of amino acid decomposition in fragments of eggshell found at archaeological sites in such places as southern Africa can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites up to 200,000 years old. Because the decomposition is slower in cool climates, the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions. We can reduce the language though to only what we need. 1.Measurements of extent of amino acid decomp in frags of egshell found at archelogial sites can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites up to 200k years old. 2.Because decomp is slower in cool climates,
3.the technique or 1. can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost 1 mil years old in cooler regions because decomp is slower in cool climates or add 1 as validation for reasoning. It's not the best explanation, but I hope it offers some insight.
Many students find repetitive and long-winded exercises to be annoying [minor premise]. Often times when students get annoyed, they also get mildly infuriated [sub-conclusion/major premise]. Being mildly infuriated is not good for a student's morale [major premise]. Therefore, I would conclude with a valid degree of certainty, that these exercises were a detriment to the morale of many students. [main conclusion]
I think the major issue I see here with the example is the missing premise that the students found these exercises to be repetitive and long-winded. That is a pretty large assumption that damages the strength of the argument.
Your argument relies on an assumption that repetition and long-winded exercises do not have value. It also infers that maintaining high student morale is the priority for the 7Sage curriculum. Neither of these are true. The main priority for 7Sage is to increase a student's test outcome. Repetition and long-winded exercises reinforce positive test outcomes.
Touche... but your counter-argument is also littered with several assumptions (your "inferences", if you will) that are simply absent from my argument. My argument infers nothing about the value of these exercises, but rather the emotional toll they take on students. You assume that I draw connection between a person's emotional response to something with its value... Similarly, my argument infers nothing about the priority of 7Sage curriculum. In fact, 7Sage curriculum is referenced nowhere in my initial argument.
@DortheaElridge same. I was like I don’t 100% this is an argument but “xyz” seems like it’s the conclusion. Definitely need to study that style of argument more.
@LiviaLSAT The author is making the claim that the aforementioned technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions.
That’s the conclusion of the argument because the premise only states that measurements of the extent of amino acid decomposition in fragments of eggshell found at archaeological sites in such places as Southern Africa can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites up to 200,000 years old.
Yet, “because the decomposition is slower in cooler climates”, accurate dates go back even further there than in Southern Africa.
@breezyprabahar944 The phrase "Because the decomposition is slower in cool climates" is a set up for a claim/conclusion. The first sentence gives premise because it gives basic information needed while the second sentence builds upon and ultimately provides a conclusion. What hinted to me that it was a conclusion was the "because" phrase and then also the reference back to the "amino acid decomposition" as "the technique".
Also, in these questions, if you flip the order of the sentence around to "The technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions Because the decomposition is slower in cool climates" the claim becomes more clear.
Sorry if this isn't helpful but thats how I understood Q1.
Question #1 does not intuitively seem like there is an argument. The question appears similar to that of research questions that did not have arguments in previous videos. If someone could carefully explain how this question differs from previous research questions that did not have arguments, that would be great. To further clarify, the last part of the statement in question 1, despite containing the transition word "because" appears merely to describe aspects about the measuring technique rather than clear up or state something definitively about the importance of the measuring technique in relation to something else. Any #help is greatly appreciated.
The point is that originally it was thought that the technique can only be used to obtain accurate dates up to 200k years ago. the premise following "because" gives a reason as to why the accuracy can go up to a million years ago specifically in cooler regions.
Question 1 was a bit confusing for me to see that it was an argument. I could not find the conclusion and felt like the writer was just giving information.
@NhubriaChikaka Honestly the most helpful tool is just asking why to each individual part. If you can find and answer to the Why then you have the conclusion.
Q1 almost made me think it wasn't an argument. Its almost not phrased as one, but digging into it and rereading it twice I saw what it was arguing and how. Rereading takes time, but a lot of the time it is invaluable in catching these kind of details
i think with the sub conclusions there should be another color to clearly see all 3. after some initial struggle i got all the conclusions and premises correct based off red and blue but when you watch the video and he explains he breaks down further and thats were i need the most help with
I'm quite confused on how Question 5 is labeled as only having one conclusion. Is the first portion (Business has an interest...to care for children) not a sub-conclusion? My thoughts behind this are that, seemingly, the author is trying to convince us that the said business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children because of X. In this case, "because those children...managers of the future" becomes the supporting claim for both the first portion and the main conclusion that follows. Let me know your thoughts.
@CamilleChmura He says that it's a sub-conclusion/major premise in the video, so you're right. It seems unintuitive to have us look out for the sub-conclusions then not mark them in questions asking us to identify conclusions.
I just had an idea for how to define arguments. Arguments are premise + conclusion. Another way of putting it is that, arguments= the ask + why.
Because arguments want you to believe X, and so they provide a reason why. So if you look for the ask (e.g having IT lessons for children), then the why (to create a tech-savvy generation) becomes simpler.
I like this!!! Thanks for sharing. When doing these exercises, I would write "support/fact" next to the premise to distinguish between the premise and to conclusion.
At first I did not understand how Question 1 was an argument. Until seeing that the first sentence states it can obtain dates for sites up to 200K years old. This is a limit. In the next sentence we state that it can obtain accurate dates from 1Mil years in colder regions. There is a clear discrepancy between these two conclusions, since it's the same technique. The evidence provided is that the decomposition rate is slower in colder climates.
- I've come back to this lesson to remind myself the difference between a Main Conclusion and a Main Point :
1. *A Main Conclusion cannot exist without being with Main Point but a Main Point can exist without a Main Conclusion argument. When a MC exists, it must be included in a Main Point Q's Correct AC but it won't necessarily be the only part of your Main Point Correct AC.
For example, a MP question I got wrong on a PT LSAT was due to picking an AC that only stated the author's argument.I was misguided in thinking that the MP wouldn't include the big ideas / Main Topics as well. From now on I will look at MP as more of a Summary and the Main Conclusion as solely the argument being made.
2. A Main Point Question can exist without the Main Conclusion. When we see a stimulus that is just a bunch of facts and conclusions made by others, we can still draw a Main Point out of the paragraph.
*For example, In RC Passages this happens a lot with Main Point Qs where the passage does not take a position he's merely presenting a debate or highlighting an artist's work. Yet we are still able to draw a main point out of what the author has said.
#feedback Several questions with SEVERE grammatical and word choice issues. Really makes me scared that I paid money for this course just to be met with THIS. I'd also question having the exact same formulation of questions repeated again and again. At least for me, I immediately began "gaming the system" mentally, just finding the pattern for these specific questions and then mercilessly exploiting it. I didn't intend to game the system, and neither do i think that pattern exploitation was the point of this problem set, but I immediately began doing so.
I think this was done on purpose. The LSAT is worded in way that is purposefully confusing, too wordy, and not to the point to test how well you are able to find the main point of the text despite the 'bad' way it was written. As for the structure of the questions all being the same and you 'gaming the system', I think that is exactly what the questions were trying to get you to do. The LSAT is a test of recognising patterns in questions and using the patterns to your advantage.
Because (indicator for premise) the decomposition is slower in cool climates, (no indicator for conclusion except the comma) the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions.
The first part of the sentence (premise) is supporting the second (conclusion). Why should we believe the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler region? because the decomposition is slower in cool climates. The first sentence is context for the argument. Hope this helps!
That one caught me too! I guess because you have assume that it is true... and if it is true that they can detect the amino acids, then that truth supports the million year point... but still tripped me up.
For all my undergrads who completed or are in a more writing-based major, I began viewing complex arguments as reflective of basic paragraph structures in an argumentative paper. For example, the overarching argument of your paper is the main argument AKA Major Conclusion. Then, the first paragraph reflects one of the sub-points presented in your thesis --> this could be considered a Sub-Conclusion/Major Premise. The details supporting the sub-point are your Minor Premises.
Let me know if this makes sense or if I just completely missed the mark LOL
283 comments
Despite correctly identifying the conclusion, I didn't think Q1 was an argument. It read more like a statement of facts. Did anyone else think so too?
yup lol
ditto
Me too
I agree!
Yep. Got myself confused there lol.
I thought so at first, but that is one of the questions where you have to kind of really comprehend the premises in order to get the conclusion. Its basically saying they found a method to gain accurate dates based on decomposing remnants (200,000 yrs), and that in cooler regions, remnants decompose much slower, therefore in cooler regions they can date back way further (1 mil yrs). worded more like that, it i easy to identify as an argument but I guess it's meant to trip us up.
I was thinking the same after working on it.
Yeah same!
same
@sweetface7 I disagree because there is no support for why "1 million" is cited. We would need to know that 1 million is accounted for - had a premisal "why" - in order for this to be an actual conclusion, unless the 'support' is so weak that this would qualify for a conclusion - which it apparently does.
Confused
@jayprev97 I would have to disagree because thinking back to our ways to identify an argument "just get to the point". What out of all this information did the author intend you to remember. As well there is alot of filler language in questions for example you might read it as such Measurements of the extent of amino acid decomposition in fragments of eggshell found at archaeological sites in such places as southern Africa can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites up to 200,000 years old. Because the decomposition is slower in cool climates, the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions. We can reduce the language though to only what we need. 1.Measurements of extent of amino acid decomp in frags of egshell found at archelogial sites can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites up to 200k years old. 2.Because decomp is slower in cool climates,
3.the technique or 1. can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost 1 mil years old in cooler regions because decomp is slower in cool climates or add 1 as validation for reasoning. It's not the best explanation, but I hope it offers some insight.
Many students find repetitive and long-winded exercises to be annoying [minor premise]. Often times when students get annoyed, they also get mildly infuriated [sub-conclusion/major premise]. Being mildly infuriated is not good for a student's morale [major premise]. Therefore, I would conclude with a valid degree of certainty, that these exercises were a detriment to the morale of many students. [main conclusion]
I think the major issue I see here with the example is the missing premise that the students found these exercises to be repetitive and long-winded. That is a pretty large assumption that damages the strength of the argument.
Your argument relies on an assumption that repetition and long-winded exercises do not have value. It also infers that maintaining high student morale is the priority for the 7Sage curriculum. Neither of these are true. The main priority for 7Sage is to increase a student's test outcome. Repetition and long-winded exercises reinforce positive test outcomes.
Touche... but your counter-argument is also littered with several assumptions (your "inferences", if you will) that are simply absent from my argument. My argument infers nothing about the value of these exercises, but rather the emotional toll they take on students. You assume that I draw connection between a person's emotional response to something with its value... Similarly, my argument infers nothing about the priority of 7Sage curriculum. In fact, 7Sage curriculum is referenced nowhere in my initial argument.
I agree with others that there should be an indication within the answers to identify a subconclusion, as thats the foocus of the lesson. 5/5 tho dub
Did anyone else have difficulty locating the argument in Question 1?
@KhyberBabak i did, i didn’t think it was one
@DortheaElridge same. I was like I don’t 100% this is an argument but “xyz” seems like it’s the conclusion. Definitely need to study that style of argument more.
i dont see how in question 1 any of the information supports a conclusion, it is just stating information
@LiviaLSAT The author is making the claim that the aforementioned technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions.
That’s the conclusion of the argument because the premise only states that measurements of the extent of amino acid decomposition in fragments of eggshell found at archaeological sites in such places as Southern Africa can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites up to 200,000 years old.
Yet, “because the decomposition is slower in cooler climates”, accurate dates go back even further there than in Southern Africa.
Hopefully that makes sense.
got confused in Question 1
I was 100% convinced question 1 was a fact-set and so was not an argument. Can someone explain to me how its an argument? Please and thank you!!
@breezyprabahar944 The phrase "Because the decomposition is slower in cool climates" is a set up for a claim/conclusion. The first sentence gives premise because it gives basic information needed while the second sentence builds upon and ultimately provides a conclusion. What hinted to me that it was a conclusion was the "because" phrase and then also the reference back to the "amino acid decomposition" as "the technique".
Also, in these questions, if you flip the order of the sentence around to "The technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions Because the decomposition is slower in cool climates" the claim becomes more clear.
Sorry if this isn't helpful but thats how I understood Q1.
It's so exciting when you feel yourself improving! 5/5 here :))
Question #1 does not intuitively seem like there is an argument. The question appears similar to that of research questions that did not have arguments in previous videos. If someone could carefully explain how this question differs from previous research questions that did not have arguments, that would be great. To further clarify, the last part of the statement in question 1, despite containing the transition word "because" appears merely to describe aspects about the measuring technique rather than clear up or state something definitively about the importance of the measuring technique in relation to something else. Any #help is greatly appreciated.
The point is that originally it was thought that the technique can only be used to obtain accurate dates up to 200k years ago. the premise following "because" gives a reason as to why the accuracy can go up to a million years ago specifically in cooler regions.
i think you're right on @lorenlacruz61059 thanks so much for your help!
Question 1 was a bit confusing for me to see that it was an argument. I could not find the conclusion and felt like the writer was just giving information.
@NhubriaChikaka Honestly the most helpful tool is just asking why to each individual part. If you can find and answer to the Why then you have the conclusion.
@NhubriaChikaka I'm glad I'm not the only one who struggled with that one. i also thought it was just stating info.
@NhubriaChikaka X2
4/5, 1 got me for whatever reason lol.
@soniaxoxo me too, I thought it wasn't an argument, just information
Q1 almost made me think it wasn't an argument. Its almost not phrased as one, but digging into it and rereading it twice I saw what it was arguing and how. Rereading takes time, but a lot of the time it is invaluable in catching these kind of details
i think with the sub conclusions there should be another color to clearly see all 3. after some initial struggle i got all the conclusions and premises correct based off red and blue but when you watch the video and he explains he breaks down further and thats were i need the most help with
I'm quite confused on how Question 5 is labeled as only having one conclusion. Is the first portion (Business has an interest...to care for children) not a sub-conclusion? My thoughts behind this are that, seemingly, the author is trying to convince us that the said business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children because of X. In this case, "because those children...managers of the future" becomes the supporting claim for both the first portion and the main conclusion that follows. Let me know your thoughts.
@CamilleChmura completely agree
@CamilleChmura He says that it's a sub-conclusion/major premise in the video, so you're right. It seems unintuitive to have us look out for the sub-conclusions then not mark them in questions asking us to identify conclusions.
The trick I use to find the conclusion is to think of the phrase "it therefore follows..."
@MiraGomha Thank you, I tried this for the rest of the questions and it worked! Great tip!
4/5 The first one caught me off guard!
I just had an idea for how to define arguments. Arguments are premise + conclusion. Another way of putting it is that, arguments= the ask + why.
Because arguments want you to believe X, and so they provide a reason why. So if you look for the ask (e.g having IT lessons for children), then the why (to create a tech-savvy generation) becomes simpler.
I like this!!! Thanks for sharing. When doing these exercises, I would write "support/fact" next to the premise to distinguish between the premise and to conclusion.
At first I did not understand how Question 1 was an argument. Until seeing that the first sentence states it can obtain dates for sites up to 200K years old. This is a limit. In the next sentence we state that it can obtain accurate dates from 1Mil years in colder regions. There is a clear discrepancy between these two conclusions, since it's the same technique. The evidence provided is that the decomposition rate is slower in colder climates.
Main Conclusion Versus Main Point
- I've come back to this lesson to remind myself the difference between a Main Conclusion and a Main Point :
1. *A Main Conclusion cannot exist without being with Main Point but a Main Point can exist without a Main Conclusion argument. When a MC exists, it must be included in a Main Point Q's Correct AC but it won't necessarily be the only part of your Main Point Correct AC.
For example, a MP question I got wrong on a PT LSAT was due to picking an AC that only stated the author's argument.I was misguided in thinking that the MP wouldn't include the big ideas / Main Topics as well. From now on I will look at MP as more of a Summary and the Main Conclusion as solely the argument being made.
2. A Main Point Question can exist without the Main Conclusion. When we see a stimulus that is just a bunch of facts and conclusions made by others, we can still draw a Main Point out of the paragraph.
*For example, In RC Passages this happens a lot with Main Point Qs where the passage does not take a position he's merely presenting a debate or highlighting an artist's work. Yet we are still able to draw a main point out of what the author has said.
@eklug001261 good to know
#feedback Several questions with SEVERE grammatical and word choice issues. Really makes me scared that I paid money for this course just to be met with THIS. I'd also question having the exact same formulation of questions repeated again and again. At least for me, I immediately began "gaming the system" mentally, just finding the pattern for these specific questions and then mercilessly exploiting it. I didn't intend to game the system, and neither do i think that pattern exploitation was the point of this problem set, but I immediately began doing so.
I think this was done on purpose. The LSAT is worded in way that is purposefully confusing, too wordy, and not to the point to test how well you are able to find the main point of the text despite the 'bad' way it was written. As for the structure of the questions all being the same and you 'gaming the system', I think that is exactly what the questions were trying to get you to do. The LSAT is a test of recognising patterns in questions and using the patterns to your advantage.
4/5
Question 1 feels like there's no argument; neither claim increases the likelihood of the truth of the other. Would love clarification :)
as a reader, how do i know that question 1 is not simply stating a set of facts. How is it clear that the other is giving an argument?
Hey there! For question #1 see below.
Because (indicator for premise) the decomposition is slower in cool climates, (no indicator for conclusion except the comma) the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions.
The first part of the sentence (premise) is supporting the second (conclusion). Why should we believe the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler region? because the decomposition is slower in cool climates. The first sentence is context for the argument. Hope this helps!
That one caught me too! I guess because you have assume that it is true... and if it is true that they can detect the amino acids, then that truth supports the million year point... but still tripped me up.
For all my undergrads who completed or are in a more writing-based major, I began viewing complex arguments as reflective of basic paragraph structures in an argumentative paper. For example, the overarching argument of your paper is the main argument AKA Major Conclusion. Then, the first paragraph reflects one of the sub-points presented in your thesis --> this could be considered a Sub-Conclusion/Major Premise. The details supporting the sub-point are your Minor Premises.
Let me know if this makes sense or if I just completely missed the mark LOL
It makes perfect sense and actually helped me fundamentally understand this. I'm used to writing essays, not differentiating premise from conclusion!
4/5 number one got me real confused at first