Can you have the "some people say" position start the phrase and immediately state something antithetical to that without the use of a trigger word? Does that weaken the argument? If someone has a drill question that exemplifies this phrasing please share!! :)
Many people believe that using public transportation saves you money rather than having a car for everyday commute. However, that is not entirely true. If you consider waiting for a bus or sky train, you lose a lot of your time, and time is something that money can not compensate for.
Some employees claim you don't need to satisfy all customers. But, customers who are not satisfied tend to never come back. Therefore, unsatisfied customers are bad for business.
In this example, which one is the premise and which one is the conclusion?:
"Some managers claim that the best way to incentivize employees to work harder is to intimidate them. But, employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work. Therefore, there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder."
I know the first sentence is context, but am unsure which sentence is the conclusion. It is written that "she wants us to believe that employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work" which makes it sound that that is the conclusion. However I feel it makes more sense if "there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder" is the conclusion.
@Nena_lena I think the last line! There is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder BECAUSE employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work. If you flip it around- employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work BECAUSE there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder you can see that it doesn't offer support to the argument.
I am still learning and am not an expert but this has been my thought process so far, I'm open to any feedback!!!
@Nena_lena I think the conlusion is the last sentence. "People who are intimidated cannont concentrate on their worl", is supporting the last sentence. If we know initmatidation is not going to make the employee concentrate, then we should try something else.
@lilifakava I think we are learning this because LSAT questions will throw a question or a passage with a bunch of information. Most of it might be context to throw us off.
The context is not related to the argument in the way that the premise is connected to the conclusion. To demonstrate this, I could say this: Most people say burgers are better than hotdogs. But, hotdogs taste better than burgers. Therefore, hotdogs are better than burgers because hotdogs taste better. What other people say about hotdogs vs. burgers has nothing to do with my conclusion. It is simply outside information that introduces the topic and sets up my argument. I can make the argument without the context but I can't make the argument without my premise or conclusion. Think of context like adding 0 in a math equation: 1+1=2, and (0)+1+1=2. The result is the same whether the 0 is there or not. Context works the same way in that it helps introduce the topic or make the argument easier to understand, but it does not affect the logical relationship between the premise and the conclusion.
@WillaWeinsheimer by no means am I an expert and I am just learning this information, but I think the distinction between the two are.
Premise - is the claim or set of claims that help support the another statement which is the conclusion of an argument.
Context - is the information that allows you to better understand the argument, In either this video or one prior if there is context and you take the context away, then the argument makes no sense.
I hope this helps!
If I am wrong about this please be more than welcome to reach out to explain the reasoning.
@PremK The "Some people say..." indicator introduces other people's arguments as context for the author's own argument, not necessarily for the author to agree or disagree.
This is an outstanding section! I did the practice in Foundations and there were for sure numerous questions I had messed up in that due to thinking the "Some people say..." was the argument not context!
@chloeg6676 I am not a tutor, however, I would say no. Context is essentially the introduction to the argument. Unless there was context to a sub conclusion and then context for the next conclusion, I think it would only be in the beginning.
Can someone explain the exact difference between this kind of context (setting the table) and just regular premise(s)? I'm having trouble differentiating the two.
Context doesn't give or recieve support, but can still be related to the argument. Idk if this will be helpful, but I'm gonna try to write a question that reads similar to the LSAT and then break it down.
"The topic of how phenonmenon 'X', occurs is a very divisive topic. In the past, everybody believed 'Y' lead to 'X'. Recently, however, a study by famous experts came out which suggested 'Z' leads to 'Q'. So obviously, everyone should accept that 'Z' leads to 'X' as well.
What's the assumption made in the argument?"
a) That the study is reliable because it was made by famous experts
There's a ton of information to unpack, but really the only sentences you needed to read to answer the question were the last two sentences.
The first two sentences ended up being only context. Knowing that the cause of 'X' is a divisive topic helped us understand the situation, but it had nothing to do with the logic chain. Arguably, the fact that the study was a recent study by famous experts is also context, as without that info, our answer wouldn't change.
The premise here is that 'Z' leads to 'Q'. The author gives this as support for why they believe the conclusion - that 'Z' leads to 'X'.
The correct answer is c, because 'Q' leads to 'X' is the missing link (assumption) in the logic chain.
I hoped this was helpful and wasn't confusing. It was definetely a nice exercise to write out my own question.
context - claim that doesn't receive or give support (neither a premise - which gives support or a conclusion - which receives), it more like "sets the stage" for the argument
Is context usually (or only) in disagreement with the eventual argument the author will make? In both cases described above (but, however, yet and some people say), the author introduced the context and ultimately made an arguement for why it is wrong. If the context agreed with the conclusion, would it be transformed into a premise, as it would be a claim that supported another claim?
Context is crucial to understanding the argument, but not a part of the argument itself. Context can "agree" with the conclusion in the way that it is relevant in understanding a situation, but not adding any validity to the conclusion.
I'm struggling a bit with the difference between context and premise. Is it a difference between stating factually and stating opinion/theory? Comparing the management example to the Disney example, I would think the premise in the Disney example in which they tell you the two ways to get a Genie+ pass would be context. The only difference I'm detecting between the Genie+ context and the management context is that the Genie+ is stated as factual, while the "management must be intimidating" is stated as just a theory.
Consider how it relates to the conclusion. In the Disney example, removing the information about how people can get the Genie+ pass would significantly impact the strength of the argument. In contrast, removing the sentence about the opinion of "some managers" does nothing to impact the strength of the relationship between the premise and conclusion in the argument.
premises are support for the conclusions made. contexts are background information that doesn't directly support the conclusion, but provides readers with an understanding for why the author cares to make the argument
I don’t know maybe it’s just me , but it takes up time to try and identify the premises along with the conclusion, and now to identify context info . When doing so on prep test it takes forever to finish a complete test. Any suggestions ?
I think if the context is synthesized into the argument, it is no longer context but now evidence/premise. What makes it "context" is that it is argumentatively irrelevant. If there were "context" that supports an argument, via increasing the likelihood that the conclusion is true or by providing reason to believe the conclusion, it is acting as premise to that conclusion.
I don't think the objective of context is to provide any support at all to the argument. It's background information that informs the reader what's the upcoming argument about. A statement that would support an "argument" (conclusion is more precise) would be a premise.
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!
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.
60 comments
Can you have the "some people say" position start the phrase and immediately state something antithetical to that without the use of a trigger word? Does that weaken the argument? If someone has a drill question that exemplifies this phrasing please share!! :)
Many people believe that using public transportation saves you money rather than having a car for everyday commute. However, that is not entirely true. If you consider waiting for a bus or sky train, you lose a lot of your time, and time is something that money can not compensate for.
Some employees claim you don't need to satisfy all customers. But, customers who are not satisfied tend to never come back. Therefore, unsatisfied customers are bad for business.
In this example, which one is the premise and which one is the conclusion?:
"Some managers claim that the best way to incentivize employees to work harder is to intimidate them. But, employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work. Therefore, there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder."
I know the first sentence is context, but am unsure which sentence is the conclusion. It is written that "she wants us to believe that employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work" which makes it sound that that is the conclusion. However I feel it makes more sense if "there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder" is the conclusion.
@Nena_lena I think the last line! There is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder BECAUSE employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work. If you flip it around- employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work BECAUSE there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder you can see that it doesn't offer support to the argument.
I am still learning and am not an expert but this has been my thought process so far, I'm open to any feedback!!!
@Nena_lena I think the conlusion is the last sentence. "People who are intimidated cannont concentrate on their worl", is supporting the last sentence. If we know initmatidation is not going to make the employee concentrate, then we should try something else.
If the author agrees with the "some people say..." can that be considered a premise?
So basically, context is necessary, but not sufficient right?
@lilifakava I think we are learning this because LSAT questions will throw a question or a passage with a bunch of information. Most of it might be context to throw us off.
"but" "however" and "yet" often indicate a transition from context to argument.
The context is not related to the argument in the way that the premise is connected to the conclusion. To demonstrate this, I could say this: Most people say burgers are better than hotdogs. But, hotdogs taste better than burgers. Therefore, hotdogs are better than burgers because hotdogs taste better. What other people say about hotdogs vs. burgers has nothing to do with my conclusion. It is simply outside information that introduces the topic and sets up my argument. I can make the argument without the context but I can't make the argument without my premise or conclusion. Think of context like adding 0 in a math equation: 1+1=2, and (0)+1+1=2. The result is the same whether the 0 is there or not. Context works the same way in that it helps introduce the topic or make the argument easier to understand, but it does not affect the logical relationship between the premise and the conclusion.
Wait, so what is the difference between a premise and context?
@WillaWeinsheimer by no means am I an expert and I am just learning this information, but I think the distinction between the two are.
Premise - is the claim or set of claims that help support the another statement which is the conclusion of an argument.
Context - is the information that allows you to better understand the argument, In either this video or one prior if there is context and you take the context away, then the argument makes no sense.
I hope this helps!
If I am wrong about this please be more than welcome to reach out to explain the reasoning.
@ChaseHatfield I think you nailed it. "Context = Extra information related and important to but not a part of the argument."
Simply put, a premise is a core part of the argument, but context is not. It is just related and important.
- I am also no expert. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Context is table setting or "other people say". This is not the author's position that their trying to persuade you of.
It is simply a "set-up" in order to provide crucial background info or for the author to agree or disagree with what other people say.
Is this correct?
@PremK The "Some people say..." indicator introduces other people's arguments as context for the author's own argument, not necessarily for the author to agree or disagree.
Just making sure, is this correct
Premise: Employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder.
@AyaHamza that was my P/C as well :)
This is an outstanding section! I did the practice in Foundations and there were for sure numerous questions I had messed up in that due to thinking the "Some people say..." was the argument not context!
Some peope say and table setting are 2 types of contexts. SPS spells out a position. Table setting give background info.
However, but and yet are indicator words to signal the start of an argument that is the author is trying to persuade you of.
Context does not give or receive support from any other part of the argument and can be temporarily discarded for identification.
Context is distinct and separate from the argument but is crucial to your understanding of it.
Will context ever be present after the argument or conclusion?
@chloeg6676 I am not a tutor, however, I would say no. Context is essentially the introduction to the argument. Unless there was context to a sub conclusion and then context for the next conclusion, I think it would only be in the beginning.
Will context only be found in passage? (you will not see this in in the logical arguments part of the LSAT,right?
@devinkey06 You can have a LR question that asks for the main point or a flaw and the question might look something like the ones in this lesson.
Can someone explain the exact difference between this kind of context (setting the table) and just regular premise(s)? I'm having trouble differentiating the two.
Context doesn't give or recieve support, but can still be related to the argument. Idk if this will be helpful, but I'm gonna try to write a question that reads similar to the LSAT and then break it down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The topic of how phenonmenon 'X', occurs is a very divisive topic. In the past, everybody believed 'Y' lead to 'X'. Recently, however, a study by famous experts came out which suggested 'Z' leads to 'Q'. So obviously, everyone should accept that 'Z' leads to 'X' as well.
What's the assumption made in the argument?"
a) That the study is reliable because it was made by famous experts
b) 'Z' leads to 'X'
c) 'Q' leads to 'X'
d) 'Y' could never lead to 'X'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a ton of information to unpack, but really the only sentences you needed to read to answer the question were the last two sentences.
The first two sentences ended up being only context. Knowing that the cause of 'X' is a divisive topic helped us understand the situation, but it had nothing to do with the logic chain. Arguably, the fact that the study was a recent study by famous experts is also context, as without that info, our answer wouldn't change.
The premise here is that 'Z' leads to 'Q'. The author gives this as support for why they believe the conclusion - that 'Z' leads to 'X'.
The correct answer is c, because 'Q' leads to 'X' is the missing link (assumption) in the logic chain.
I hoped this was helpful and wasn't confusing. It was definetely a nice exercise to write out my own question.
context - claim that doesn't receive or give support (neither a premise - which gives support or a conclusion - which receives), it more like "sets the stage" for the argument
premise - gives support to the conclusion
Is context usually (or only) in disagreement with the eventual argument the author will make? In both cases described above (but, however, yet and some people say), the author introduced the context and ultimately made an arguement for why it is wrong. If the context agreed with the conclusion, would it be transformed into a premise, as it would be a claim that supported another claim?
Context is crucial to understanding the argument, but not a part of the argument itself. Context can "agree" with the conclusion in the way that it is relevant in understanding a situation, but not adding any validity to the conclusion.
Does anyone else find themselves applying these principles to everything they read now?
"No, that's not an argument."
"Setting the table, that's context."
And my personal favorite, "Nope, that's a sub conclusion."
I'm struggling a bit with the difference between context and premise. Is it a difference between stating factually and stating opinion/theory? Comparing the management example to the Disney example, I would think the premise in the Disney example in which they tell you the two ways to get a Genie+ pass would be context. The only difference I'm detecting between the Genie+ context and the management context is that the Genie+ is stated as factual, while the "management must be intimidating" is stated as just a theory.
Consider how it relates to the conclusion. In the Disney example, removing the information about how people can get the Genie+ pass would significantly impact the strength of the argument. In contrast, removing the sentence about the opinion of "some managers" does nothing to impact the strength of the relationship between the premise and conclusion in the argument.
What exactly is the main difference between a premise and context? or can they be used interchangeably?
premises are support for the conclusions made. contexts are background information that doesn't directly support the conclusion, but provides readers with an understanding for why the author cares to make the argument
Premises are also claims. Context is just background information.
I don’t know maybe it’s just me , but it takes up time to try and identify the premises along with the conclusion, and now to identify context info . When doing so on prep test it takes forever to finish a complete test. Any suggestions ?
You'll get faster with practice. Understanding the stimulus on this level is absolutely critical to getting into the high 160s and 170s.
In all of our examples, the "setting the table" version of context leads to an argument that refutes it.
Are their examples of arguments that use context to support the argument?
I think if the context is synthesized into the argument, it is no longer context but now evidence/premise. What makes it "context" is that it is argumentatively irrelevant. If there were "context" that supports an argument, via increasing the likelihood that the conclusion is true or by providing reason to believe the conclusion, it is acting as premise to that conclusion.
I don't think the objective of context is to provide any support at all to the argument. It's background information that informs the reader what's the upcoming argument about. A statement that would support an "argument" (conclusion is more precise) would be a premise.
Can you put up the charts that were created to help with these in the notes below the video, as you do in the earlier lessons of this section?
they're awesome to have in my notes and refer back to!
Hmm i never thought about the context and transitions to arguments you learn something new everyday.
Are we always only interested in the argument of the author ?
We are interested in the argument the author is presenting. This can sometimes be someone else's argument.