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.
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.
I appreciate the lesson but I hope that I find reason why I should focus or read the context in the first place. I understand that I'll need it for the "other people's position" context setting to take a position, however, I find it to be confusing at times and I end up focusing on the context too much and use it as a premise for the questions I'm asked in LSAT.
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. :(
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.
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.
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.
A study showed that women from America cheat at significantly higher rates than men from America, so a common belief amongst those who’ve seen this study is that American women are more dishonest than American men. However, this can’t be true, because another study observing American women and American men has shown that both groups cheat at similar rates.
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.
@mutayeb From my experience, the "other people's position" is like a counterargument that strengthens the author's conclusion or claim. Instead of just ignoring it completely.
as i understand it table setting introduces the topic for us and other peoples position will introduce, well, other peoples positions in order for the author to provide their conclusion
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.
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.
@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.
Critics consider Belgian chocolate to be the best chocolate in the world. It is also Jenny's favorite chocolate, but in order to buy this famous chocolate, one must travel to the factory in Belgium. Jenny lives in England, and seldom travels to Belgium, therefore, she seldom eats her favorite chocolate.
Context: Critics consider Belgian chocolate to be the best chocolate in the world.
Argument: It is also Jenny's favorite chocolate, but in order to buy this famous chocolate, one must travel to the factory in Belgium. Jenny lives in England, and seldom travels to Belgium, therefore, she seldom eats her favorite chocolate.
Premises: It is also Jenny's favorite chocolate, but in order to buy this famous chocolate, one must travel to the factory in Belgium. Jenny lives in England, and seldom travels to Belgium
Conclusion: Jenny seldom eats her favorite chocolate
So I just used SageAI, and it basically says that no, they are not the same. The only time they can appear to be the same is in Other People's Arguments.
In these arguments, the other person's premise would become your context. In a standalone context, their argument has a premise; however, their premise only acts as a way to provide information to your own argument. I feel that reads as scatterbrained, but I hope that helps.
74 comments
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.
This is how i need all modules to be explained
thank you
I needed to read this. Thank you.
Me: WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN
@almostfamous shakespeare who??
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.
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)
I appreciate the lesson but I hope that I find reason why I should focus or read the context in the first place. I understand that I'll need it for the "other people's position" context setting to take a position, however, I find it to be confusing at times and I end up focusing on the context too much and use it as a premise for the questions I'm asked in LSAT.
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. :(
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.
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.
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 :).
A study showed that women from America cheat at significantly higher rates than men from America, so a common belief amongst those who’ve seen this study is that American women are more dishonest than American men. However, this can’t be true, because another study observing American women and American men has shown that both groups cheat at similar rates.
The zebra example is diabolical.
Lord have mercy.
@GGG lol
#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.
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 : /
here for OPP jokes
@PeterDellaVecchia PP jokes?
@PeterDellaVecchia I'm gettin down wit em
Does anyone know why zebras have stripes
So basically other people's positions are just a context to pave the way for the author to respond to the other person's POV using their own argument.
@mutayeb From my experience, the "other people's position" is like a counterargument that strengthens the author's conclusion or claim. Instead of just ignoring it completely.
as i understand it table setting introduces the topic for us and other peoples position will introduce, well, other peoples positions in order for the author to provide their conclusion
So an argument has a conclusion if the argument is made by the author? Otherwise, it could be context or a sub-conclusion?
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.
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.
nice
[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.
Critics consider Belgian chocolate to be the best chocolate in the world. It is also Jenny's favorite chocolate, but in order to buy this famous chocolate, one must travel to the factory in Belgium. Jenny lives in England, and seldom travels to Belgium, therefore, she seldom eats her favorite chocolate.
Context: Critics consider Belgian chocolate to be the best chocolate in the world.
Argument: It is also Jenny's favorite chocolate, but in order to buy this famous chocolate, one must travel to the factory in Belgium. Jenny lives in England, and seldom travels to Belgium, therefore, she seldom eats her favorite chocolate.
Premises: It is also Jenny's favorite chocolate, but in order to buy this famous chocolate, one must travel to the factory in Belgium. Jenny lives in England, and seldom travels to Belgium
Conclusion: Jenny seldom eats her favorite chocolate
can context and premise be the same in certain situations then?
So I just used SageAI, and it basically says that no, they are not the same. The only time they can appear to be the same is in Other People's Arguments.
In these arguments, the other person's premise would become your context. In a standalone context, their argument has a premise; however, their premise only acts as a way to provide information to your own argument. I feel that reads as scatterbrained, but I hope that helps.
Grammatical error detected: A group of Britisher researchers BELIEVES — a group is singular.