Are concessions most effective when used against unreasonable counter arguments? For example, a counter argument based on unpalatable food challenging access to a well-balanced diet is not relevant, which weakens it's reasonableness - which would correlate with a more effective concession...or one that the speaker may be more willing to give.
If instead the concession was based on a counter argument of price, this would hold weaker effectiveness because the counter argument of price is more reasonable comparatively to unpalatability of the food as a counter to the premise of access to a well-balanced diet.
All this to say, are concessions also subject to a relative strength based on the reasonableness of the counter argument point used in the concession? Concessions aren't a full-proof guard against a counterargument...it's strength is based on the reasonableness of the counter argument. If that even makes sense...
Anyways, to dig myself out of that rabbit hole...I suppose for purposes of the LSAT, identification of different parts of the stimulus are the important lesson here, not so much the practical application of concessions in an argument broader than presented in a scoped stimulus, quesiton, and answer choices.
im thinking that a piece of contextual information that indicates another person's contrary argument preceded by "some people think..." would not be a concession point because it does not necessarily cut against the author's claim. so, a concessionary point is moreso a counter-premise, and not a counter-conclusion? otherwise, the examples we learned about in the previous lesson that start with "some experts say..." could count as a concessionary point. what does everyone else think?
My understanding of the purpose of a concession is so the "get a head" of any other points that can be argued against their main point so as to prove that the concession point is minor/unimportant compared to the point the author wants to make
Curious... why would an author do this "points offered in concession. If an author can anticipate a point that his opponent might bring up, he might volunteer that information before making his argument.". Is it to weaken the other side? Also, what purpose would this serve on the LSAT. Thanks for your time & help.
The point on over inclusiveness is a good one. I'm glad you guys included it in the CC as it's something that every student inevitably figures out when they blindly apply the rule without understanding the exceptions where the rule doesn't work. Ask me how I know haha...
I'd love to see a lesson that goes over some exceptions, and shows how words that are almost always indicate a premise or a conclusion can sometimes play a different role based on sentence construction.
1
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.
36 comments
parents give children dye free diets to lessen emotional outbursts, even though other factors can also contribute to bad behavior.
Are concessions most effective when used against unreasonable counter arguments? For example, a counter argument based on unpalatable food challenging access to a well-balanced diet is not relevant, which weakens it's reasonableness - which would correlate with a more effective concession...or one that the speaker may be more willing to give.
If instead the concession was based on a counter argument of price, this would hold weaker effectiveness because the counter argument of price is more reasonable comparatively to unpalatability of the food as a counter to the premise of access to a well-balanced diet.
All this to say, are concessions also subject to a relative strength based on the reasonableness of the counter argument point used in the concession? Concessions aren't a full-proof guard against a counterargument...it's strength is based on the reasonableness of the counter argument. If that even makes sense...
Anyways, to dig myself out of that rabbit hole...I suppose for purposes of the LSAT, identification of different parts of the stimulus are the important lesson here, not so much the practical application of concessions in an argument broader than presented in a scoped stimulus, quesiton, and answer choices.
tbh, I feel like concession points are low key manipulative lmao
There are indicator words for concessions. Usually, the word stands in opposition to an author's argument or is a qualifier.
im thinking that a piece of contextual information that indicates another person's contrary argument preceded by "some people think..." would not be a concession point because it does not necessarily cut against the author's claim. so, a concessionary point is moreso a counter-premise, and not a counter-conclusion? otherwise, the examples we learned about in the previous lesson that start with "some experts say..." could count as a concessionary point. what does everyone else think?
Why is "To ensure access to a well-balanced diet" a premise? It seems it should be context.
So a concussion is when a claim goes against/ weakens the authors main argument
So, like a concession, the author is conceding somewhat conceding to a counterargument that can be made.
I like how you ended the video with a concession :)
Im wondering if there is a page where all the indictor words are listed?
Concession points almost downplay the author's argument, it does not necessarily support the argument.
In spite of Justin Trudeau's summer campaigning efforts, the conservatives still hold a commanding lead in the polls.
Example: Although my roommate is allergic to cats, we should get a cat for our suite because it would improve everyone's mental well-being.
Do concession points weaken or strengthen arguments?
When quickly running through an argument like this on the test is it ok to label concession and context as the same thing?
#Help: Are/can concessions (be) premises?
#help what would be an example of where “even though” is not a concession indicator?
My understanding of the purpose of a concession is so the "get a head" of any other points that can be argued against their main point so as to prove that the concession point is minor/unimportant compared to the point the author wants to make
Curious... why would an author do this "points offered in concession. If an author can anticipate a point that his opponent might bring up, he might volunteer that information before making his argument.". Is it to weaken the other side? Also, what purpose would this serve on the LSAT. Thanks for your time & help.
#help (Added by Admin)
How do you differentiate between concession indicator words and the general context indicator words like But, However
#help (added by Admin)
The point on over inclusiveness is a good one. I'm glad you guys included it in the CC as it's something that every student inevitably figures out when they blindly apply the rule without understanding the exceptions where the rule doesn't work. Ask me how I know haha...
I'd love to see a lesson that goes over some exceptions, and shows how words that are almost always indicate a premise or a conclusion can sometimes play a different role based on sentence construction.