Here is how I am thinking about it, a conclusion is a claim being asserted as true, the premise supports this claim. Since "I'm hugging you" is not a claim being asserted as true, it cannot be a conclusion, so it is not an argument.
Still don't really understand why the hugging example isn't an argument. I guess it might depend on the context, but my initial reading of it made it seem like the author was trying to persuade the listener WHY they were hugging them, not that they were hugging them at all. In that case, I feel it would definitely classify as an argument, no?
If the author is genuinely just explaining why they are hugging, I suppose that doesn't have to be an argument, but isn't it bad practice to just assume that or read that in to the text when it might not be present?
I don’t understand how the hugging example isn’t and argument. I identify when I say “why should I believe conclusion because premises “ and using this same logic why should I believe I miss you because I’m hugging you. It’s definitely a weak one but an argument nonetheless no?
Isn't this an argument similar to that of Poseidon? Why is it different? There is an act, a conclusion, where the premise of my hugging is that I miss the person. The same notion could be made for Poseidon, who feels a certain way (the conclusion) having a direct cause by the destruction (the premise).
Both lack the persuasive part of an argument other than the general "one does X because Y", answering the simple question of "why". I'm just a little confused on why the context changes in these examples.
"For," "since," and "because” all introduce premises. The special thing about these words is that you'll also find the conclusion present in the same sentence. But, remember this is a rule of thumb. It's not always true.
Weird question - Because is an indicator but if the phrase was "because of this..." would that be an indicator that the phrase that follows be the conclusion? (This more so relates to over-inclusive)
For example:
The test took an average time of 2 hours and the class average was 60%, because of this, the test must have been hard.
Sorry if this is a poor example, but would it be ok to think like that? Also if anyone has some examples with since/for feel free to share! I can't think of good ones!
I understand that this is getting into the weeds, but the reason that "for" and "since" don't lead to arguments in the counter examples because the parts of speech have shifted. (Illicit changes!) In the example with "for," it's become a preposition, whereas it's a conjunction in the main example. In the example with "since," it's still a conjunction, but it's a temporal conjunction (like "after" or "before") instead of a causal one (like "because," "so," or "but").
In the example with "I hugged you because I missed you," I would argue that this is actually an argument. The premise is that the speaker misses the listener. The conclusion is that the speaker hugged the listener. If we switched the pronouns for names, we could easily see this as an argument that could be challenged:
Person 1: "Max hugged James because she missed him."
Person 2: "No, she didn't. Max hugged James because he asked her to."
In a parallel situation, we could also imagine this conversation:
Person 1: "Max endorsed James because she has confidence in him."
Person 2: "No, she didn't. Max endorsed James because he asked her to."
Evidently, the second scenario involves an argument, so surely the first does as well.
why exactly is "i'm hugging you because i miss you" not an argument? how can "i'm hugging you" not be seen as support? is it because there's nothing in the excerpt that provides evidence that people hug when they miss someone? #help
Great lesson. Will the LSAT throw us many curveballs using "for", "since", and "Because" in paragraphs to try to throw us off if they are not used as an argument? If so, maybe there is a quick way to identify them, in a super long argument, to know if its just a curveball and what the true conclusion is all within a couple seconds time as we read it in the LSAT? They don't give us hardly enough time to read the arguments, much less the answers.
how come in the example “I’m hugging you because I miss you” because is not an indicator? if the sentence was “because I’m hugging you, I miss you,”would “I’m hugging you” be a premise and “I miss you” be a conclusion? I could ask myself "why would I believe this conclusion/aka why do I believe I'm being missed" and respond "I'm being hugged." #help
Can’t the premise and conclusion be argued to be either or? Poseidon’s temple was desecrated - how do we know this? He is furious. Obvious this is an assumption to assume he is furious that his temple is destroyed , but there is an assumption both ways? Am I looking at this wrong ? #help
Something that LSAT students really need to take to the bank is that these indicators are over-inclusive. We do not have time to look at the word "because" and make a decision on whether it is being used in the context of indicating a premise or otherwise. We just have to know. But, we are more naturally inclined the distinction than we think. Be in the moment, do not over analyze every indicator, rely on your instinct as a college educated person to know when a indicator word sticks out like a sore thumb and when it is used in a simple description.
11
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!
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
Here is how I am thinking about it, a conclusion is a claim being asserted as true, the premise supports this claim. Since "I'm hugging you" is not a claim being asserted as true, it cannot be a conclusion, so it is not an argument.
Since my dog ate my homework, I am very mad.
Still don't really understand why the hugging example isn't an argument. I guess it might depend on the context, but my initial reading of it made it seem like the author was trying to persuade the listener WHY they were hugging them, not that they were hugging them at all. In that case, I feel it would definitely classify as an argument, no?
If the author is genuinely just explaining why they are hugging, I suppose that doesn't have to be an argument, but isn't it bad practice to just assume that or read that in to the text when it might not be present?
I'm hugging you because I miss you, therefore you should hug me back tightly.
This is now made into an argument because I am trying to persuade you to hug me back tightly because I miss you.
Im hugging you because I miss you.
Premises: Because I miss you.
Conclusion: I am hugging you.
Premises: Because I miss you.
Why should I believe this?
Conclusion: I am hugging you.
Please forgive me for the toothpaste flakes on the mirror.
Can also be an argument as its trying to persuade.
I don’t understand how the hugging example isn’t and argument. I identify when I say “why should I believe conclusion because premises “ and using this same logic why should I believe I miss you because I’m hugging you. It’s definitely a weak one but an argument nonetheless no?
I cry myself to sleep at night because the Miami Heat are bad at basketball.
"I'm hugging you because I miss you."
Isn't this an argument similar to that of Poseidon? Why is it different? There is an act, a conclusion, where the premise of my hugging is that I miss the person. The same notion could be made for Poseidon, who feels a certain way (the conclusion) having a direct cause by the destruction (the premise).
Both lack the persuasive part of an argument other than the general "one does X because Y", answering the simple question of "why". I'm just a little confused on why the context changes in these examples.
After identifying the conclusion, asking myself why really helps to solidify it!
"For," "since," and "because” all introduce premises. The special thing about these words is that you'll also find the conclusion present in the same sentence. But, remember this is a rule of thumb. It's not always true.
Question on one example
"I'm hugging you because I miss you."
Wouldn't this be an argument if the sentence were like:
"I will hug you because I miss you."
Premise: I miss you.
Conclusion: Therefore, I will hug you.
#help
Weird question - Because is an indicator but if the phrase was "because of this..." would that be an indicator that the phrase that follows be the conclusion? (This more so relates to over-inclusive)
For example:
The test took an average time of 2 hours and the class average was 60%, because of this, the test must have been hard.
Sorry if this is a poor example, but would it be ok to think like that? Also if anyone has some examples with since/for feel free to share! I can't think of good ones!
I made some examples . Correct me if I am wrong.
Because:
The jar was empty because my son made a sandwich and used the last of the mayo.
Because my son made a sandwich and used the last of the mayo, the jar was empty.
Since:
Since it was winter the weather was cold and the snow was falling.
The water was cold and the snow was falling since it was winter.
For:
For it to be snowing, precipitation has to occur and the temperature needs to be below freezing.
Precipitation has to occur and the temperature needs to be below freezing in order for it to be snowing.
#feedback
#feedback
I understand that this is getting into the weeds, but the reason that "for" and "since" don't lead to arguments in the counter examples because the parts of speech have shifted. (Illicit changes!) In the example with "for," it's become a preposition, whereas it's a conjunction in the main example. In the example with "since," it's still a conjunction, but it's a temporal conjunction (like "after" or "before") instead of a causal one (like "because," "so," or "but").
In the example with "I hugged you because I missed you," I would argue that this is actually an argument. The premise is that the speaker misses the listener. The conclusion is that the speaker hugged the listener. If we switched the pronouns for names, we could easily see this as an argument that could be challenged:
Person 1: "Max hugged James because she missed him."
Person 2: "No, she didn't. Max hugged James because he asked her to."
In a parallel situation, we could also imagine this conversation:
Person 1: "Max endorsed James because she has confidence in him."
Person 2: "No, she didn't. Max endorsed James because he asked her to."
Evidently, the second scenario involves an argument, so surely the first does as well.
why exactly is "i'm hugging you because i miss you" not an argument? how can "i'm hugging you" not be seen as support? is it because there's nothing in the excerpt that provides evidence that people hug when they miss someone? #help
Great lesson. Will the LSAT throw us many curveballs using "for", "since", and "Because" in paragraphs to try to throw us off if they are not used as an argument? If so, maybe there is a quick way to identify them, in a super long argument, to know if its just a curveball and what the true conclusion is all within a couple seconds time as we read it in the LSAT? They don't give us hardly enough time to read the arguments, much less the answers.
how come in the example “I’m hugging you because I miss you” because is not an indicator? if the sentence was “because I’m hugging you, I miss you,”would “I’m hugging you” be a premise and “I miss you” be a conclusion? I could ask myself "why would I believe this conclusion/aka why do I believe I'm being missed" and respond "I'm being hugged." #help
Can’t the premise and conclusion be argued to be either or? Poseidon’s temple was desecrated - how do we know this? He is furious. Obvious this is an assumption to assume he is furious that his temple is destroyed , but there is an assumption both ways? Am I looking at this wrong ? #help
Something that LSAT students really need to take to the bank is that these indicators are over-inclusive. We do not have time to look at the word "because" and make a decision on whether it is being used in the context of indicating a premise or otherwise. We just have to know. But, we are more naturally inclined the distinction than we think. Be in the moment, do not over analyze every indicator, rely on your instinct as a college educated person to know when a indicator word sticks out like a sore thumb and when it is used in a simple description.