Chocolate is Willy's favorite candy, which is why he made a whole factory to produce his chocolate. This year, Willy has sold 500 chocolate bars, and he sold them quickly. Because of the good sales this year, Willy is expecting to sell over 1000 chocolate bars next year.
Context: Chocolate is Willy's favorite candy, which is why he made a whole factory to produce his chocolate.
Premise: This year, Willy has sold 500 chocolate bars, and he sold them quickly. Because of the good sales this year...
Conclusion: ...Willy is expecting to sell over 1000 chocolate bars next year.
Working moms say that stay at home moms don’t have to do that much work. But, that’s not true. Stay at home moms have to cook, clean, deal with the child’s tantrums, entertain all day, set schedules, make sure they’re development is on track, etc.
Many people wonder how they can improve their dog's walking behaviour and prevent leash pulling. Prong collars are a commonly used tool to help properly leash train a dog. Prong collars are statistically shown to improve most dogs leash behaviour. Therefore, prong collars are one of the most effective ways to leash train a dog.
In Spain, many residents take a break during the middle of the day which is referred to as a 'siesta'. Taking a siesta leaves those to be re-energized to complete the rest of their tasks. Therefore, it is important to take a siesta.
First sentence is context. The second sentence is the premise. The last sentence is the conclusion.
Many people have wondered how to defend properly against poison gas. In the First World War, gas attacks killed countless people. I have researched and found has found a possible defense. If there was a way to filter the poison before you breathed it in, the chance of survival is much higher. Gas masks are the solution to the problem of poison gas.
First 2 sentences are context. The next 2 are premises. The last sentence is the conclusion.
In the first example, the information about zebra stripes is context, not supportive of the conclusion, despite the conclusion implying that the zebra striped coat is WHY flies did not land on them.
In the second example, zebra stripes are a supportive premise for the conclusion.
Why is the mention of zebra stripes context in the first example, and a premise in the second?
Context gives a background info on but not related to the argument and is crucial to understanding the argument. However, it is not a part of the author's argument.
There are 2 types of contexts: 1) Table Setting and 2) Other peoples' argument.
You may feel in love with Casablanca but I heard from former CIA officers that it is crawling with spies. However, once I did my own research on the city, it has less spies than any other major city in the world. The reason for this is because of Casablanca's relatively small population and WW2, which was the event that increased the amount of spies, is over.
Since it's a hot Friday night, Glorilla will act up. Glorilla acts up when it's 7pm Friday and it's 95 degrees. I ain't got no man and no man ain't got me.
Conclusion: Glorilla will act up.
Premises: It's a hot friday night. Glorilla acts up when it's 7pm Friday and it's 95 degrees.
Context: I ain't got no man and no man ain't got me.
can context be seen as a support to the premise - more so than support to a conclusion, which in turn would make it a premise. I understand how there is a difference. But I still see how context is supportive...am I making sense?
I don't know why this annoys me, but I've seen it happen across the board; even with the instructors, the default/assumption is that the person in the "argument/stimulus" is male. If I'm learning that nothing is assumed in the stimulus, why assume the POV is male? It honestly throws me off an annoys me.
Why is "zebras have black and white stripes that fail to camouflage them against background vegetation" not a premise but in previous lessons, "fluffy is a dog" is a premise? I feel like both statements are helping to support the conclusion because they are giving you a description over the animal that is being talked about.
#help In the Zebra example, couldn't you switch the premise and conclusion?
Let's say we take it to be true that "the reason for zebras coats are protection from flies". Doesn't that make it more likely that "fewer flies landed on zebras"?
#help In the table setting example, couldn't we drill in and describe the line "zebras have black and white stripes" as a premise? I know it's pedantic, but thinking back to the tigers-as-pets example in which we explored what would happen to the argument of the premise that tigers are mammals broke down, wouldn't a similar logic apply to the zebra line? If zebras did NOT have stripes in our fantasy world (see the similarly fantastical reptilian tigers), the argument that zebras have stripes to deter flies from landing seems laughable.
This structure is very similar to papers you'd write throughout your education.
Background/Context → Statement → Support (→ Statement again)
Although I find it difficult when they slather the whole thing in unfamiliar subject matters : /
3
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.
47 comments
here for OPP jokes
Chocolate is Willy's favorite candy, which is why he made a whole factory to produce his chocolate. This year, Willy has sold 500 chocolate bars, and he sold them quickly. Because of the good sales this year, Willy is expecting to sell over 1000 chocolate bars next year.
Context: Chocolate is Willy's favorite candy, which is why he made a whole factory to produce his chocolate.
Premise: This year, Willy has sold 500 chocolate bars, and he sold them quickly. Because of the good sales this year...
Conclusion: ...Willy is expecting to sell over 1000 chocolate bars next year.
Working moms say that stay at home moms don’t have to do that much work. But, that’s not true. Stay at home moms have to cook, clean, deal with the child’s tantrums, entertain all day, set schedules, make sure they’re development is on track, etc.
Was this a correct example?
I love the use (and modification) of the classic Socrates Syllogism.
Many people wonder how they can improve their dog's walking behaviour and prevent leash pulling. Prong collars are a commonly used tool to help properly leash train a dog. Prong collars are statistically shown to improve most dogs leash behaviour. Therefore, prong collars are one of the most effective ways to leash train a dog.
In Spain, many residents take a break during the middle of the day which is referred to as a 'siesta'. Taking a siesta leaves those to be re-energized to complete the rest of their tasks. Therefore, it is important to take a siesta.
First sentence is context. The second sentence is the premise. The last sentence is the conclusion.
Many people have wondered how to defend properly against poison gas. In the First World War, gas attacks killed countless people. I have researched and found has found a possible defense. If there was a way to filter the poison before you breathed it in, the chance of survival is much higher. Gas masks are the solution to the problem of poison gas.
First 2 sentences are context. The next 2 are premises. The last sentence is the conclusion.
I am going to work at my job, so that means 8 hours of none stop working. I forgot to call my sister earlier.
Premise- I am going to work at my 9-5 job,
Conclusion- So that means 8 hours of none stop working.
Context- I forgot to call my sister earlier
This is my own example. Is this a correct way?
In the first example, the information about zebra stripes is context, not supportive of the conclusion, despite the conclusion implying that the zebra striped coat is WHY flies did not land on them.
In the second example, zebra stripes are a supportive premise for the conclusion.
Why is the mention of zebra stripes context in the first example, and a premise in the second?
nice
Context gives a background info on but not related to the argument and is crucial to understanding the argument. However, it is not a part of the author's argument.
There are 2 types of contexts: 1) Table Setting and 2) Other peoples' argument.
You may feel in love with Casablanca but I heard from former CIA officers that it is crawling with spies. However, once I did my own research on the city, it has less spies than any other major city in the world. The reason for this is because of Casablanca's relatively small population and WW2, which was the event that increased the amount of spies, is over.
Since it's a hot Friday night, Glorilla will act up. Glorilla acts up when it's 7pm Friday and it's 95 degrees. I ain't got no man and no man ain't got me.
Conclusion: Glorilla will act up.
Premises: It's a hot friday night. Glorilla acts up when it's 7pm Friday and it's 95 degrees.
Context: I ain't got no man and no man ain't got me.
Is Other People's Position the same as a counter-claim?
#feedback Only some of the lesson videos seem to allow for full screen and the other video options.
#feedback There is a grammatical error. Research team is singular, not plural.
can context be seen as a support to the premise - more so than support to a conclusion, which in turn would make it a premise. I understand how there is a difference. But I still see how context is supportive...am I making sense?
I don't know why this annoys me, but I've seen it happen across the board; even with the instructors, the default/assumption is that the person in the "argument/stimulus" is male. If I'm learning that nothing is assumed in the stimulus, why assume the POV is male? It honestly throws me off an annoys me.
How is the principle of contexts in this sense different form assumptions
Will context always be in the beginning or can the author sometimes switch the order?
Why is "zebras have black and white stripes that fail to camouflage them against background vegetation" not a premise but in previous lessons, "fluffy is a dog" is a premise? I feel like both statements are helping to support the conclusion because they are giving you a description over the animal that is being talked about.
are the arguments usually opinions?
is there a difference between premise and context? or are they really just the same thing?
#help In the Zebra example, couldn't you switch the premise and conclusion?
Let's say we take it to be true that "the reason for zebras coats are protection from flies". Doesn't that make it more likely that "fewer flies landed on zebras"?
#help In the table setting example, couldn't we drill in and describe the line "zebras have black and white stripes" as a premise? I know it's pedantic, but thinking back to the tigers-as-pets example in which we explored what would happen to the argument of the premise that tigers are mammals broke down, wouldn't a similar logic apply to the zebra line? If zebras did NOT have stripes in our fantasy world (see the similarly fantastical reptilian tigers), the argument that zebras have stripes to deter flies from landing seems laughable.
This structure is very similar to papers you'd write throughout your education.
Background/Context → Statement → Support (→ Statement again)
Although I find it difficult when they slather the whole thing in unfamiliar subject matters : /