Dogs are known to wag their tail in an excited manner whenever they come to see a puppy of the same breed. Large groups of people have often wondered why the dogs only do this for dogs of the same breed and if it works for mixed breeds. A group of researchers have found the conclusion, as long as one breed is shared, the dog will wag its tail. When presented in a controlled study, golden doodles wagged their tail when they saw either golden retrievers, poodles, or a mix of both as puppies.
Has anyone noticed that in the first few videos, when he reviews at the end, he bolds important vocab words but later videos its gone. The bolding of important concepts or vocabulary really help me when jotting down notes and remembering these concepts. :(
@asanchez According to the video, the context does not support the conclusion in any way. However, I do have a pickle with this example, as the fact that stripes do not serve as camouflage can be support that stripes evolved for a different reason, and in this case for protection against flies. Like, if we were to negate the piece of information in the context: stripes do serve as camouflage, I would argue that it weakens the conclusion that stripes evolved for the protection against flies.
Most people think lacrosse is a soft sport, which is usually backed by the fact that it gets little to no airtime. However, this is not true. Studies show that rugby, which also receives limited airtime, is perceived to be rougher than mainstream sports and as physically demanding as lacrosse.
@JacksonCarroll Some 7Sage commenters believe that using 7Sage is the only way to do well on the LSAT. However, this thinking is erroneous. Many LSAT takers have scored well into the 170s using other study methods, such as LSAT Demon or The Loophole.
Unlike other grazing mammals on the African savanna, zebras have black and white stripes that fail to camouflage them against background vegetation. Why this is also the context, but not the argument?
@JodiChan This provides context that the function of stripes is unknown outside of the argument being made. You can remove that information and the argument still maintains support for the conclusion that the stripes protect from horse flies. Consider what the ultimate goal of the passage is and the fact that the lack of camouflage has no effect on whether or not the conclusion is supported.
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.
@BreanaNunez Yeah i think this is a great example as the first sentence is other people's opinion, the second sentence is the conclusion, and the rest of it is the premise.
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.
If you're still looking for a reply I would rearrange the paragraph and add a little more to fit it in this context. To table set, the context is that "I forgot to call my sister this morning" the conclusion will probably have to be one that doesn't make sense without this context so the new paragraph will be.
I forgot to call my sister this morning. I am going into work, and my shift is 8 hours long, so sister will have to wait.
Now that the conclusion is that "my sister will have it wait" it requires the context of the first sentence to know what she is waiting for.
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?
@tristan.yukon I think its because the sentence is directly related in the first example but not in the second. I would relate it to this new more simple context.
Mary: I like chocolate because it is rich and milky.
Steve: Mary likes chocolate because it is rich snd milky. But I think that chocolate is disgusting because it can be bitter and chalky
Though this is more simple I think that it can kind of explain that Mary bringing up reasons of why chocolate is good is her premise but Steve uses it as context for why he is even talking about chocolate in the first place
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.
I've also had this happen to me. I've found that refreshing the page can fix it, but going back to the syllabus and clicking on the lesson from there almost always fixes it.
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?
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.
64 comments
Dogs are known to wag their tail in an excited manner whenever they come to see a puppy of the same breed. Large groups of people have often wondered why the dogs only do this for dogs of the same breed and if it works for mixed breeds. A group of researchers have found the conclusion, as long as one breed is shared, the dog will wag its tail. When presented in a controlled study, golden doodles wagged their tail when they saw either golden retrievers, poodles, or a mix of both as puppies.
Has anyone noticed that in the first few videos, when he reviews at the end, he bolds important vocab words but later videos its gone. The bolding of important concepts or vocabulary really help me when jotting down notes and remembering these concepts. :(
From my understanding, context is a sentence that doesn't support an argument or is supported by a premise.
There are two functions/types of contexts:
table setting: introduces the topic, tells us the "why we care" part of it
other ppl's pov: introduces what scholars, reserachers, etc. think of the topic before the author introduces what they think (concur or not)
So an argument has a conclusion if the argument is made by the author? Otherwise, it could be context or a sub-conclusion?
what is the difference between a premise and context? what would be the best way to identify the two?
@asanchez According to the video, the context does not support the conclusion in any way. However, I do have a pickle with this example, as the fact that stripes do not serve as camouflage can be support that stripes evolved for a different reason, and in this case for protection against flies. Like, if we were to negate the piece of information in the context: stripes do serve as camouflage, I would argue that it weakens the conclusion that stripes evolved for the protection against flies.
Most people think lacrosse is a soft sport, which is usually backed by the fact that it gets little to no airtime. However, this is not true. Studies show that rugby, which also receives limited airtime, is perceived to be rougher than mainstream sports and as physically demanding as lacrosse.
@Thesegreydays
Context: What people think.
Conclusion: Not true.
Premise: What the studies show.
The zebra example is diabolical.
Lord have mercy.
@GGG lol
[This comment was deleted.]
@JacksonCarroll i would say thats a illogical argument
@JacksonCarroll Some 7Sage commenters believe that using 7Sage is the only way to do well on the LSAT. However, this thinking is erroneous. Many LSAT takers have scored well into the 170s using other study methods, such as LSAT Demon or The Loophole.
Unlike other grazing mammals on the African savanna, zebras have black and white stripes that fail to camouflage them against background vegetation. Why this is also the context, but not the argument?
@JodiChan This provides context that the function of stripes is unknown outside of the argument being made. You can remove that information and the argument still maintains support for the conclusion that the stripes protect from horse flies. Consider what the ultimate goal of the passage is and the fact that the lack of camouflage has no effect on whether or not the conclusion is supported.
here for OPP jokes
@PeterDellaVecchia PP jokes?
@PeterDellaVecchia I'm gettin down wit em
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?
@BreanaNunez Yeah i think this is a great example as the first sentence is other people's opinion, the second sentence is the conclusion, and the rest of it is the premise.
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.
@AmarAlkhatib As a Spaniard, I am entirely persuaded by your argument :).
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?
If you're still looking for a reply I would rearrange the paragraph and add a little more to fit it in this context. To table set, the context is that "I forgot to call my sister this morning" the conclusion will probably have to be one that doesn't make sense without this context so the new paragraph will be.
I forgot to call my sister this morning. I am going into work, and my shift is 8 hours long, so sister will have to wait.
Now that the conclusion is that "my sister will have it wait" it requires the context of the first sentence to know what she is waiting for.
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?
@tristan.yukon I have the same question
@tristan.yukon I think its because the sentence is directly related in the first example but not in the second. I would relate it to this new more simple context.
Mary: I like chocolate because it is rich and milky.
Steve: Mary likes chocolate because it is rich snd milky. But I think that chocolate is disgusting because it can be bitter and chalky
Though this is more simple I think that it can kind of explain that Mary bringing up reasons of why chocolate is good is her premise but Steve uses it as context for why he is even talking about chocolate in the first place
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.
thank you
I needed to read this. Thank you.
This is how i need all modules to be explained
Me: WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN
@almostfamous shakespeare who??
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.
I've also had this happen to me. I've found that refreshing the page can fix it, but going back to the syllabus and clicking on the lesson from there almost always fixes it.
#feedback There is a grammatical error. Research team is singular, not plural.
#LOL
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?
The distinction with context is that if you remove it, it does not impact the strength of the argument