Why is it true that Poseidon is furious? Because his temple was desecrated. Here is a bit more, because I know the Poseidon example is a bit annoying:
Poseidon being furious is a state of mind, one that cannot necessarily be posed as fact. His emotion is speculative as a statement alone, therefore the author is offering the argument to prove Poseidon’s emotion. The author is positing the Poseidon must be furious because his temple was desecrated.
How is "I'm hugging you because I miss you" not an argument? I thought about it like, "I'm hugging you, and why?" - because I miss you. Isn't the "I miss you" supporting why I am hugging that person?
@AkshayaAnnampedu "I'm hugging you" describes an action, not a belief. The main difference lies between an argument and an explanation. By saying "I'm hugging you because I miss you" the author is not trying to make you believe or convince you, rather they are explaining an action.
The way I thought about it was, "could someone argue that I am not hugging you?" No, because its an irrefutable action, and the fact that "I miss you" is just an explanation. If I had said "Everyone should hug someone they haven't seen in a while because they missed them," then I am trying to convince you of why an action should occur (argument), not explain why I am doing something (explanation).
So because I am a little nervous of confusing these words when they DON'T signify premises, is it true I can ALWAYS ask "why" to the premise and if there is a why answered it must make sense? For instance, "I'm hugging you because I miss you." You can ask "why do you miss me" and the answer is "because I am hugging you".. this doesn't make sense so it is not a premise. Can this logic work for all cases?
"Poseidon is furious, for it was his temple that was desecrated." Why is this an argument and not an explanation? Maybe we aren't trying to prove posideon was angry, just explain why.
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?
@Sameer_Ahamad I disagree. If you were to try and make it an argument, I would say that "I miss you" is the conclusion. --> I'm trying to persuade you that "I miss you. " (conclusion)
"Why should I believe that?"
"Well, I'm hugging you. " (premise/evidence)
If you d it the other way around, it doesn't make much sense for "I miss you" to be evidence/premise for a conclusion of "I'm hugging you."
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?
Update I read some reply but I’m still confused if someone is trying to prove the miss you by hugging doesn’t that make it the structure of an argument
I may be wrong but it almost feels like more of a claim than an argument. Now if it was a bit more fleshed out and lets say... it was "We spend a lot of time away from one another. When I have an extended period of time away from you, it makes me miss you. I tend to hug when I miss someone. Therefore, I hugged you because I miss you." would make it an argument.
@a.ugonna Sorry I'm late, but here's what I think about it. I think that for those statements to be considered an argument, the only way for me to see that would be with "It really shouldn’t have caused a long estrangement." as the conclusion. I think that some of the sentences were unnecessary, though, and none really served as premises. There was a potential conclusion, but the lack of premises gave the conclusion no merit and therefore made the set of statements just that: a set of statements. The argument in question, with you seeing the conclusion as "Therefore, I hugged you because I miss you." makes sense, but it's implied that the incident with the toothpaste flecks on the mirror is not a reasonable means for a breakup or seperation, and I think that this statement overshadows the grounds for any other potential argument.
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.
Is the author trying to convince you that she hugged you? No -- it's a fact that she hugged you, and she's telling you the reason she hugged you. "I miss you" is not supposed to prove that she hugged you. Sometimes "because" is simply describing a cause and not being used to indicate argument structure.
"I ordered pizza because I was hungry."
I'm not trying to convince you that I ordered pizza. It is a fact that I ordered pizza, and I'm telling you the reason I ordered it.
But now consider this:
"Poseidon must be furious, because his temple was desecrated."
Does it make sense that it's not necessarily a fact that Poseidon is furious? The author is trying to convince us that Poseidon is furious. And she's offering to us the fact that his temple was desecrated as something that should prove to us that he must be furious.
Notice that I included the language cue "must," which suggests a speculative mindset. That makes it easier to see that "Poseidon is furious" is speculation rather than a fact.
"Poseidon is furious, because his temple was desecrated."
We can also interpret this as an argument for the same reason that the previous example was an argument. It's not clear that "Poseidon is furious" is a fact; it can be read as the author's speculation based on the fact Poseidon's temple was desecrated.
I'll note that if you think the removal of "must" makes the statement no longer an argument, that's reasonable. There are some sets of statements that are legitimately ambiguous. They might be considered an argument, or they might not.
"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.
I originally thought this too, but then I remembered persuasiveness. I think you have to think about if the author is trying to persuade you of something. There is no persuasion going on in this case
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!
That is an argument with a premise and a conclusion, and I would say 'because' is still the indicator word here. The conclusion, 'the test must have been hard,' follows the indicator 'because of this.' I’m not sure if you would see 'because of this' on the LSAT, since it is not grammatically correct, but in this case, it is interchangeable with an indicator word like 'so,' which was mentioned in a previous lesson.
yes good point, this example does show how because is both an indicator and a premise. Try switching up your example The test was hard because The test took an average time of 2 hours and the class average was 60%. it shows you that either the premise or conclusion can be interchangeable coming either before or after the indicator because. Furthermore because can be interchangeable with other indicators in this lesson like since. For example he test took an average time of 2 hours and the class average was 60%. since the test was hard.
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.
This is exactly what I came here to say. Very poor examples. I understand the necessity of clarifying that these words don't ALWAYS introduce premises, but the examples need to be explained properly. I know we're not all literature majors, but these are easy to explain.
I concur that the hugging example is, in fact, just a very simple argument.
"I hugged you because I missed you" isn't an argument, because the author isn't trying to convince the listener that "I hugged you." The statement is simply describing the cause of the hugging.
Consider the following:
"Yesterday, I went to the store because I ran out of milk."
I'm not trying to prove to you that I went to the store. I'm not asking you believe that I went to the store and offering to you as proof of what I did the fact that I ran out of milk. It's simply a fact that I went to the store and I'm telling you some more about my trip -- I went there because I ran out of milk.
In your modified example (Person 1 v. Person 2), although you present a dispute, that doesn't prove the disputed claim is a conclusion. A conclusion is defined as one based on the fact that there is support offered for it. Person 1 does not offer us any reason to believe that the reason Max hugged James because she missed him. She simply asserts without support that Max hugged James due to her missing him. So, although Person 2 can dispute whether that was really the reason Max hugged James, that doesn't make what Person 1 said a conclusion (or an argument).
Consider this example, where "Max hugged James because she missed him" would be a conclusion:
Max hugged her brother, James, immediately after he got off his flight. She hugged James because she was missing him. After all, Max and James used to hang out all the time before James went off to college, and Max was sad after he left.
In that set of statements, the author is trying to prove to you that the reason Max hugged James was that she missed him. And we get evidence that is designed to support the claim that the hug was due to Max's missing her brother.
But if you took away the other sentences and just examined "Max hugged James because she missed him" in isolation, then the statement is no longer a conclusion.
See the comment I made immediately above -- does that shed light on the hugging example? The LSAT would not consider "I hugged you because I missed you" an argument, because there is no statement offered to support that claim. In addition, "I hugged you" is not a conclusion, because the author isn't trying to prove to the listener that "I hugged you." Rather, the hug is something that already happened, and the author is simply telling us the cause of the hug.
The fact that someone can dispute the cause of the hug does not make the statement a conclusion. "The sky is blue." That's not a conclusion even though someone could dispute it and say, "No, the sky is red." Whether something can be disputed is not a factor in determining whether something is a conclusion.
To make "The sky is blue" a conclusion, I would need to offer support for it. "The sky is blue. After all, that's the color I see when I look up at it." Now, "the sky is blue" is a conclusion.
This is a really solid explanation of the stages that an argument can take! I appreciate the walk-through, since it was quite illustrative. The point that the just being able to contest the cause of something does not mean that the cause is a premise for its effect in the sense of a claim was the most helpful.
However, I think that brings up a different problem then.
If I understand correctly, your point is that an argument is defined not merely by a cause and its effect, but rather by some previous premise supporting our conclusion of that cause - effect relationship. (For instance, your added premise that Max and James hung out and Max was sad when he left was differentiates that point.) If that's the case, though, I'm confused on why any of the "Poseidon is furious because X" statements are any more of an argument than "Max hugged James because X" is. Obviously, we know experientially that hugging is a more objective state than being furious is. However, let's assume we could put on our "is-that-guy-furious?" glasses and see Poseidon being furious, in the same way that we see Max hugging James.
If that's true, then I can't see any distinction in the syntax of these two statements:
- 1) Max hugged James because she missed him.
- 2) Poseidon is furious because [it was] his temple was desecrated.
In fairness, you could just say that my assumption is ridiculous, and it kind of is. Yet if there are at least some instances where that assumption is true – that Poseidon being furious is as factual / objectively perceived as Max hugging James – then what would distinguish the two statements in terms of statement 1) not being an argument, but statement 2) still being an argument?
(To preempt a point of confusion here, I think that a self-evident answer is just that the author's intention is to convince the reader that Poseidon is furious, but I think that this would, in turn, contradict your point above that the reader isn't trying to prove that Max hugged James because it's merely a factual occurrence. In other words, my point is to assume that his being furious is something factual, which would require the argument to lie elsewhere based on my understanding of your explanation about why "Max hugged James" is not the conclusion of an argument.)
Very insightful question! I agree with you that there's nothing syntactically to distinguish the two examples. And in fact there are definitely cases on the LSAT where a sentence might seem like an argument, but we're meant to interpret it as simply a causal relationship. Almost nothing on this test is 100% mechanical -- context does play a role. If interpreting the Poseidon statement as an argument were important to a question, and the LSAT wanted to help us out, they would phrase it as "Poseidon must be furious..." The "must be" then signals a speculative posture that wouldn't make sense to read as an assertion of fact about Poseidon's observable state.
What do you think about these examples (and I don't mean to suggest there's one correct interpretation):
"Jimmy got an A because he sucked up to the professor."
"Jimmy got an A because he studied hard for the exam."
That's a really helpful point that modal language like "must be" vs. "is" is indicative of an argumentative / speculative view from the speaker! Your example was very clear, and I'll be sure to keep that in mind as I'm reviewing.
For me, in both of these examples with Jimmy, Jimmy's getting an A is an established fact, but its premise is as disputed (sucking up or studying hard) as in my examples above and as in the Poseidon examples. In other words, to me, saying: "Jimmy got an A because he [did either action]" is as argumentative as saying "Poseidon is furious because his temple was destroyed."
Building on your distinction above, however, I think that this would be more clearly an argument if the examples were something like: "Jimmy must have gotten / surely got / should have gotten an A because he sucked up to the professor / because he studied hard for exam." I'm not sure how you feel about this, but from your point above and my sense of the difference, it seems like these modifications ("must have / surely / should have") imply that the speaker is not factually sure that Jimmy got an A, but views their knowledge of the premise ("studied hard") as sufficient to conclude with varying degrees of speculative certainty (but not factually certainty) that Jimmy did get an A.
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
I'm hugging you because I miss you is more assumption-based rather than reasoning. If it were to say instead "John hugged Elizabeth. John usually hugs people when they miss them. Therefore, John missed Elizabeth." This would have been an argument.
I had the same question and looked it up on another site. This is what I found, I hope this helps:
What is an Argument?
An argument, in logical terms, is a set of statements where some statements (premises) provide support or reasons for another statement (the conclusion).
Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations
The key difference between an argument and an explanation lies in their purpose:
Argument: Aims to persuade or prove that a conclusion is true.
Explanation: Aims to clarify why something is the case.
Analyzing the Sentence
Sentence: "I'm hugging you because I miss you."
Parts:
"I'm hugging you" (statement of action).
"because I miss you" (statement of reason).
Why It's an Explanation
In this sentence:
The primary purpose is to explain why the action (hugging) is occurring.
It’s not trying to persuade the listener to accept the action or prove that the action is happening; it’s taken as a given.
Constructing an Argument
For it to be an argument, it would need to be structured to prove a point, like this:
Premise: If I miss someone, I hug them.
Premise: I miss you.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am hugging you.
This structure shows a clear attempt to use premises to logically support a conclusion.
Key Points to Consider
Explanation: "I'm hugging you because I miss you" states a cause-effect relationship without the intent to persuade or conclude.
Argument: Provides premises to support the truth of a conclusion.
Example Comparison
Explanation: "The streets are wet because it rained."
Purpose: To explain why the streets are wet.
Argument: "The streets are wet, so it must have rained."
Purpose: To conclude that it rained based on the observation of wet streets.
In conclusion, "I'm hugging you because I miss you" is not an argument because it does not aim to prove or persuade. It’s simply explaining the reason for the hug.
Any arguments in this statement are based on assumption. We would need to get them on the spectrum of Strong → Weak Arguments.
I miss people when I go without seeing them for more than 4 minutes. You were gone for 5 minutes. Since I always hug people when I miss them, I'm hugging you.
Hey there, I found this on another website, and I believe their explanation, which is very clear and well-said, will remove and uncertainties you still have. Like this comment so more people can see it.
"An argument is an attempt to provide support for a claim. One useful way of thinking about this is that an argument is, at least potentially, something that could be used to persuade someone about the truth of the argument’s conclusion. If you want to persuade someone that your conclusion is true, you have to start from premises that they likely already agree with. So in an argument, the premises tend to be
less controversial than the conclusion. If the premises were more controversial than the conclusion, then the argument would have very little persuasive power. The primary issue that an argument tries to resolve is whether the conclusion is true."
"In contrast, the main purpose of an explanation is to provide a deeper understanding of something that is already accepted as true. The focal point of an explanation (we call it the explanandum, the equivalent of conclusion in argument) is generally
accepted by both parties in the conversation. We accept that a certain thing is true, but we a better understanding of why or how it’s true."
So I think it has to with the relationship of support. An argument should have a premise and a conclusion, and the premise increases the likelihood of the the conclusion being true. But there's no such relationship here. Saying "because I miss you," doesn't make the fact of the hug any more likely. It only provides a rationale for the hug. So there's no argument here.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
67 comments
The tread on my tires is starting to hit pavement.
These lessons have been so helpful so far!
im starting to cook
Why is it true that Poseidon is furious? Because his temple was desecrated. Here is a bit more, because I know the Poseidon example is a bit annoying:
Poseidon being furious is a state of mind, one that cannot necessarily be posed as fact. His emotion is speculative as a statement alone, therefore the author is offering the argument to prove Poseidon’s emotion. The author is positing the Poseidon must be furious because his temple was desecrated.
How is "I'm hugging you because I miss you" not an argument? I thought about it like, "I'm hugging you, and why?" - because I miss you. Isn't the "I miss you" supporting why I am hugging that person?
@AkshayaAnnampedu "I'm hugging you" describes an action, not a belief. The main difference lies between an argument and an explanation. By saying "I'm hugging you because I miss you" the author is not trying to make you believe or convince you, rather they are explaining an action.
The way I thought about it was, "could someone argue that I am not hugging you?" No, because its an irrefutable action, and the fact that "I miss you" is just an explanation. If I had said "Everyone should hug someone they haven't seen in a while because they missed them," then I am trying to convince you of why an action should occur (argument), not explain why I am doing something (explanation).
@MikeRoss This is super helpful, thank you!
@MikeRoss I was arguing with myself a bit about this one as well, and defaulted to similar logic. There’s no argument for or against the hugging.
So because I am a little nervous of confusing these words when they DON'T signify premises, is it true I can ALWAYS ask "why" to the premise and if there is a why answered it must make sense? For instance, "I'm hugging you because I miss you." You can ask "why do you miss me" and the answer is "because I am hugging you".. this doesn't make sense so it is not a premise. Can this logic work for all cases?
Since my brother ate my leftovers, I am furious at him.
Hi, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the topics and ideas in this section so thank you
"Poseidon is furious, for it was his temple that was desecrated." Why is this an argument and not an explanation? Maybe we aren't trying to prove posideon was angry, just explain why.
since intros premise of argument
con can show up before or after indicator word
conc is free to move but premise is attached to indicator work
im hugging you because i miss you i am not trying to convince you that i am hugging you because i miss you that doesn't make sense
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.
@Sameer_Ahamad I disagree. If you were to try and make it an argument, I would say that "I miss you" is the conclusion. --> I'm trying to persuade you that "I miss you. " (conclusion)
"Why should I believe that?"
"Well, I'm hugging you. " (premise/evidence)
If you d it the other way around, it doesn't make much sense for "I miss you" to be evidence/premise for a conclusion of "I'm hugging you."
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?
Update I read some reply but I’m still confused if someone is trying to prove the miss you by hugging doesn’t that make it the structure of an argument
I may be wrong but it almost feels like more of a claim than an argument. Now if it was a bit more fleshed out and lets say... it was "We spend a lot of time away from one another. When I have an extended period of time away from you, it makes me miss you. I tend to hug when I miss someone. Therefore, I hugged you because I miss you." would make it an argument.
@a.ugonna Sorry I'm late, but here's what I think about it. I think that for those statements to be considered an argument, the only way for me to see that would be with "It really shouldn’t have caused a long estrangement." as the conclusion. I think that some of the sentences were unnecessary, though, and none really served as premises. There was a potential conclusion, but the lack of premises gave the conclusion no merit and therefore made the set of statements just that: a set of statements. The argument in question, with you seeing the conclusion as "Therefore, I hugged you because I miss you." makes sense, but it's implied that the incident with the toothpaste flecks on the mirror is not a reasonable means for a breakup or seperation, and I think that this statement overshadows the grounds for any other potential argument.
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.
Similarly confused about this. You are providing a reason for the action being committed. If you think of it as:
"Why are you hugging me?"
"Because I miss you."
Then I don't see how it isn't an argument. You are trying to convince someone about the reason for the action occurring. I don't really get it.
Is the author trying to convince you that she hugged you? No -- it's a fact that she hugged you, and she's telling you the reason she hugged you. "I miss you" is not supposed to prove that she hugged you. Sometimes "because" is simply describing a cause and not being used to indicate argument structure.
"I ordered pizza because I was hungry."
I'm not trying to convince you that I ordered pizza. It is a fact that I ordered pizza, and I'm telling you the reason I ordered it.
But now consider this:
"Poseidon must be furious, because his temple was desecrated."
Does it make sense that it's not necessarily a fact that Poseidon is furious? The author is trying to convince us that Poseidon is furious. And she's offering to us the fact that his temple was desecrated as something that should prove to us that he must be furious.
Notice that I included the language cue "must," which suggests a speculative mindset. That makes it easier to see that "Poseidon is furious" is speculation rather than a fact.
"Poseidon is furious, because his temple was desecrated."
We can also interpret this as an argument for the same reason that the previous example was an argument. It's not clear that "Poseidon is furious" is a fact; it can be read as the author's speculation based on the fact Poseidon's temple was desecrated.
I'll note that if you think the removal of "must" makes the statement no longer an argument, that's reasonable. There are some sets of statements that are legitimately ambiguous. They might be considered an argument, or they might not.
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.
I originally thought this too, but then I remembered persuasiveness. I think you have to think about if the author is trying to persuade you of something. There is no persuasion going on in this case
#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!
That is an argument with a premise and a conclusion, and I would say 'because' is still the indicator word here. The conclusion, 'the test must have been hard,' follows the indicator 'because of this.' I’m not sure if you would see 'because of this' on the LSAT, since it is not grammatically correct, but in this case, it is interchangeable with an indicator word like 'so,' which was mentioned in a previous lesson.
yes good point, this example does show how because is both an indicator and a premise. Try switching up your example The test was hard because The test took an average time of 2 hours and the class average was 60%. it shows you that either the premise or conclusion can be interchangeable coming either before or after the indicator because. Furthermore because can be interchangeable with other indicators in this lesson like since. For example he test took an average time of 2 hours and the class average was 60%. since the test was hard.
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.
This is exactly what I came here to say. Very poor examples. I understand the necessity of clarifying that these words don't ALWAYS introduce premises, but the examples need to be explained properly. I know we're not all literature majors, but these are easy to explain.
I concur that the hugging example is, in fact, just a very simple argument.
"I hugged you because I missed you" isn't an argument, because the author isn't trying to convince the listener that "I hugged you." The statement is simply describing the cause of the hugging.
Consider the following:
"Yesterday, I went to the store because I ran out of milk."
I'm not trying to prove to you that I went to the store. I'm not asking you believe that I went to the store and offering to you as proof of what I did the fact that I ran out of milk. It's simply a fact that I went to the store and I'm telling you some more about my trip -- I went there because I ran out of milk.
In your modified example (Person 1 v. Person 2), although you present a dispute, that doesn't prove the disputed claim is a conclusion. A conclusion is defined as one based on the fact that there is support offered for it. Person 1 does not offer us any reason to believe that the reason Max hugged James because she missed him. She simply asserts without support that Max hugged James due to her missing him. So, although Person 2 can dispute whether that was really the reason Max hugged James, that doesn't make what Person 1 said a conclusion (or an argument).
Consider this example, where "Max hugged James because she missed him" would be a conclusion:
Max hugged her brother, James, immediately after he got off his flight. She hugged James because she was missing him. After all, Max and James used to hang out all the time before James went off to college, and Max was sad after he left.
In that set of statements, the author is trying to prove to you that the reason Max hugged James was that she missed him. And we get evidence that is designed to support the claim that the hug was due to Max's missing her brother.
But if you took away the other sentences and just examined "Max hugged James because she missed him" in isolation, then the statement is no longer a conclusion.
See the comment I made immediately above -- does that shed light on the hugging example? The LSAT would not consider "I hugged you because I missed you" an argument, because there is no statement offered to support that claim. In addition, "I hugged you" is not a conclusion, because the author isn't trying to prove to the listener that "I hugged you." Rather, the hug is something that already happened, and the author is simply telling us the cause of the hug.
The fact that someone can dispute the cause of the hug does not make the statement a conclusion. "The sky is blue." That's not a conclusion even though someone could dispute it and say, "No, the sky is red." Whether something can be disputed is not a factor in determining whether something is a conclusion.
To make "The sky is blue" a conclusion, I would need to offer support for it. "The sky is blue. After all, that's the color I see when I look up at it." Now, "the sky is blue" is a conclusion.
#feedback
This is a really solid explanation of the stages that an argument can take! I appreciate the walk-through, since it was quite illustrative. The point that the just being able to contest the cause of something does not mean that the cause is a premise for its effect in the sense of a claim was the most helpful.
However, I think that brings up a different problem then.
If I understand correctly, your point is that an argument is defined not merely by a cause and its effect, but rather by some previous premise supporting our conclusion of that cause - effect relationship. (For instance, your added premise that Max and James hung out and Max was sad when he left was differentiates that point.) If that's the case, though, I'm confused on why any of the "Poseidon is furious because X" statements are any more of an argument than "Max hugged James because X" is. Obviously, we know experientially that hugging is a more objective state than being furious is. However, let's assume we could put on our "is-that-guy-furious?" glasses and see Poseidon being furious, in the same way that we see Max hugging James.
If that's true, then I can't see any distinction in the syntax of these two statements:
- 1) Max hugged James because she missed him.
- 2) Poseidon is furious because [it was] his temple was desecrated.
In fairness, you could just say that my assumption is ridiculous, and it kind of is. Yet if there are at least some instances where that assumption is true – that Poseidon being furious is as factual / objectively perceived as Max hugging James – then what would distinguish the two statements in terms of statement 1) not being an argument, but statement 2) still being an argument?
(To preempt a point of confusion here, I think that a self-evident answer is just that the author's intention is to convince the reader that Poseidon is furious, but I think that this would, in turn, contradict your point above that the reader isn't trying to prove that Max hugged James because it's merely a factual occurrence. In other words, my point is to assume that his being furious is something factual, which would require the argument to lie elsewhere based on my understanding of your explanation about why "Max hugged James" is not the conclusion of an argument.)
Very insightful question! I agree with you that there's nothing syntactically to distinguish the two examples. And in fact there are definitely cases on the LSAT where a sentence might seem like an argument, but we're meant to interpret it as simply a causal relationship. Almost nothing on this test is 100% mechanical -- context does play a role. If interpreting the Poseidon statement as an argument were important to a question, and the LSAT wanted to help us out, they would phrase it as "Poseidon must be furious..." The "must be" then signals a speculative posture that wouldn't make sense to read as an assertion of fact about Poseidon's observable state.
What do you think about these examples (and I don't mean to suggest there's one correct interpretation):
"Jimmy got an A because he sucked up to the professor."
"Jimmy got an A because he studied hard for the exam."
#feedback
That's a really helpful point that modal language like "must be" vs. "is" is indicative of an argumentative / speculative view from the speaker! Your example was very clear, and I'll be sure to keep that in mind as I'm reviewing.
For me, in both of these examples with Jimmy, Jimmy's getting an A is an established fact, but its premise is as disputed (sucking up or studying hard) as in my examples above and as in the Poseidon examples. In other words, to me, saying: "Jimmy got an A because he [did either action]" is as argumentative as saying "Poseidon is furious because his temple was destroyed."
Building on your distinction above, however, I think that this would be more clearly an argument if the examples were something like: "Jimmy must have gotten / surely got / should have gotten an A because he sucked up to the professor / because he studied hard for exam." I'm not sure how you feel about this, but from your point above and my sense of the difference, it seems like these modifications ("must have / surely / should have") imply that the speaker is not factually sure that Jimmy got an A, but views their knowledge of the premise ("studied hard") as sufficient to conclude with varying degrees of speculative certainty (but not factually certainty) that Jimmy did get an A.
@Kevin_Lin its an arguement because people are arguing about it.
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
I'm hugging you because I miss you is more assumption-based rather than reasoning. If it were to say instead "John hugged Elizabeth. John usually hugs people when they miss them. Therefore, John missed Elizabeth." This would have been an argument.
I had the same question and looked it up on another site. This is what I found, I hope this helps:
What is an Argument?
An argument, in logical terms, is a set of statements where some statements (premises) provide support or reasons for another statement (the conclusion).
Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations
The key difference between an argument and an explanation lies in their purpose:
Argument: Aims to persuade or prove that a conclusion is true.
Explanation: Aims to clarify why something is the case.
Analyzing the Sentence
Sentence: "I'm hugging you because I miss you."
Parts:
"I'm hugging you" (statement of action).
"because I miss you" (statement of reason).
Why It's an Explanation
In this sentence:
The primary purpose is to explain why the action (hugging) is occurring.
It’s not trying to persuade the listener to accept the action or prove that the action is happening; it’s taken as a given.
Constructing an Argument
For it to be an argument, it would need to be structured to prove a point, like this:
Premise: If I miss someone, I hug them.
Premise: I miss you.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am hugging you.
This structure shows a clear attempt to use premises to logically support a conclusion.
Key Points to Consider
Explanation: "I'm hugging you because I miss you" states a cause-effect relationship without the intent to persuade or conclude.
Argument: Provides premises to support the truth of a conclusion.
Example Comparison
Explanation: "The streets are wet because it rained."
Purpose: To explain why the streets are wet.
Argument: "The streets are wet, so it must have rained."
Purpose: To conclude that it rained based on the observation of wet streets.
In conclusion, "I'm hugging you because I miss you" is not an argument because it does not aim to prove or persuade. It’s simply explaining the reason for the hug.
Any arguments in this statement are based on assumption. We would need to get them on the spectrum of Strong → Weak Arguments.
I miss people when I go without seeing them for more than 4 minutes. You were gone for 5 minutes. Since I always hug people when I miss them, I'm hugging you.
I have the same question
Had the same question
Hey there, I found this on another website, and I believe their explanation, which is very clear and well-said, will remove and uncertainties you still have. Like this comment so more people can see it.
"An argument is an attempt to provide support for a claim. One useful way of thinking about this is that an argument is, at least potentially, something that could be used to persuade someone about the truth of the argument’s conclusion. If you want to persuade someone that your conclusion is true, you have to start from premises that they likely already agree with. So in an argument, the premises tend to be
less controversial than the conclusion. If the premises were more controversial than the conclusion, then the argument would have very little persuasive power. The primary issue that an argument tries to resolve is whether the conclusion is true."
"In contrast, the main purpose of an explanation is to provide a deeper understanding of something that is already accepted as true. The focal point of an explanation (we call it the explanandum, the equivalent of conclusion in argument) is generally
accepted by both parties in the conversation. We accept that a certain thing is true, but we a better understanding of why or how it’s true."
So I think it has to with the relationship of support. An argument should have a premise and a conclusion, and the premise increases the likelihood of the the conclusion being true. But there's no such relationship here. Saying "because I miss you," doesn't make the fact of the hug any more likely. It only provides a rationale for the hug. So there's no argument here.
ok but what if we kissed ahaha
Thanks
thanks，help me a lot