Hello :) Did anyone click on "see full diagram" and have any success, mine does not open up to anything! Just want to make sure I am not missing out on any crucial info. Thanks!!
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?
@Benjaminrobert It supports the conclusion. The author is arguing that freshman should register for the meal plan to ensure access to a well-balanced diet.
I'm sure you have found this out by now, but at the end of this section there will be an "argument" overview and you will see the entire chart of indicators.
Keep in mind these are both under, and over utilized.
I would say it depends. Naturally, if the argument sufficiently counters the concession, then it strengthens because it has discredited some reference point. Contrarily, if a concession is brought up but the argument fails to address it or makes a weak counter than it hurts the argument. That said, the intention (successful or not) of a concession is often to strengthen the argument or why else would the author add it? Though other times it really is just contextual information, as an argument needs to be staged in the context of prevailing or existing understandings. Now how much this matters for the LSAT and what is more typical for the LSAT is an insight someone else might need to provide. I will say I think it is safe to assume if an LSAT RC passage is using a concession to strengthen its argument, it is most likely going to do it successfully considering the source material is often highly credible.
Example of a concession weakening a theoretical argument:
(Concession) While the Senator from Wyoming is correct that school lunches are underfunded and unhealthy, (premise) he is known to lie and (conclusion) therefore we shouldn't listen to him about increasing funding.
This example has a weak argument, and as a result the concession is actually more compelling when put next to the argument.
Example of a concession strengthening:
(Concession) While the Senator from Wyoming is correct that school lunches are underfunded and unhealthy, (premise) studies show that more funding would not make the lunches healthier and (conclusion) therefore to make the lunches healthier we should think of better solutions than more funding.
By disconnecting the implied causal relationship posited by the Senator this argument successfully uses the concession as a springboard.
Obviously, these examples make no sense (being underfunded is defined by criteria like not being healthy enough) but that is not germane to what I am trying to demonstrate. I am terrible at thinking of examples, but I hope that helps.
weaken. they are a sort of contextual information. similar to context(outside knowledge or opinions on subjects). the only difference is its being directly stated by the author.
yes, I would say so. it's a type of contextual information, but the main difference from normal context is that its a viewpoint or information directly from the author not from someone else.
context ex- some people say--- a group claims (someone else's opinion, outside knowledge)
concession points--despite, although, even tho etc. ( directly from the author, his knowledge)
I believe that concessions are a type of context, "They are claims that the author makes that don't support his argument. If anything, they might hurt his argument." So going off this I do not think they can be a premises. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.
Speed limits are ineffective. The number of car accidents due to speeding keeps increasing, even though the city keeps expanding their speed limits in every street.
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.
My first thought is "what purpose does this phrase serve" questions on the LSAT.
example:
Q: "What purpose does the statement that the food is unpalatable serve in this passage?" A: to identify a criticism of the argument that the author intends to invalidate
My lawyer does this all the time - it's to strengthen his argument by "getting out in front of it" like JY says and is usually done to undermine the oppositional argument by saying 'hey I know this doesn't make us look good but x and y are why I'm here to ask you to think about these other things.' Now the judge is less interested in what the opposing argument is gonna say bc they already know what it'll be.
*When I read concessions in arguments in the LSAT it honestly works on me too, so I'd think it's to be able to recognize it on the LSAT.
Concession words seem to serve as not turning the argument, but offer an idea of "this is partially true, but this should be still considered" where as words like but however, negate the previous thing completely, as they are rejecting or turning away from that idea
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.
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.
39 comments
Hello :) Did anyone click on "see full diagram" and have any success, mine does not open up to anything! Just want to make sure I am not missing out on any crucial info. Thanks!!
Bro had to throw in a cheeky concession at the end ;]
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
@JaceGuinto95 That's exactly the test maker's point #theyhateus
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.
@Benjaminrobert It supports the conclusion. The author is arguing that freshman should register for the meal plan to ensure access to a well-balanced diet.
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?
I'm sure you have found this out by now, but at the end of this section there will be an "argument" overview and you will see the entire chart of indicators.
Keep in mind these are both under, and over utilized.
Best of luck!
I meant under and over inclusive, sorry!
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?
I would say it depends. Naturally, if the argument sufficiently counters the concession, then it strengthens because it has discredited some reference point. Contrarily, if a concession is brought up but the argument fails to address it or makes a weak counter than it hurts the argument. That said, the intention (successful or not) of a concession is often to strengthen the argument or why else would the author add it? Though other times it really is just contextual information, as an argument needs to be staged in the context of prevailing or existing understandings. Now how much this matters for the LSAT and what is more typical for the LSAT is an insight someone else might need to provide. I will say I think it is safe to assume if an LSAT RC passage is using a concession to strengthen its argument, it is most likely going to do it successfully considering the source material is often highly credible.
Example of a concession weakening a theoretical argument:
(Concession) While the Senator from Wyoming is correct that school lunches are underfunded and unhealthy, (premise) he is known to lie and (conclusion) therefore we shouldn't listen to him about increasing funding.
This example has a weak argument, and as a result the concession is actually more compelling when put next to the argument.
Example of a concession strengthening:
(Concession) While the Senator from Wyoming is correct that school lunches are underfunded and unhealthy, (premise) studies show that more funding would not make the lunches healthier and (conclusion) therefore to make the lunches healthier we should think of better solutions than more funding.
By disconnecting the implied causal relationship posited by the Senator this argument successfully uses the concession as a springboard.
Obviously, these examples make no sense (being underfunded is defined by criteria like not being healthy enough) but that is not germane to what I am trying to demonstrate. I am terrible at thinking of examples, but I hope that helps.
I would say it strengthens! It allows the opposing argument to be persuaded
.
weaken. they are a sort of contextual information. similar to context(outside knowledge or opinions on subjects). the only difference is its being directly stated by the author.
Well, If it supports the opposing argument to be persuaded, then it's weakening the argument that is being made.
When quickly running through an argument like this on the test is it ok to label concession and context as the same thing?
yes, I would say so. it's a type of contextual information, but the main difference from normal context is that its a viewpoint or information directly from the author not from someone else.
context ex- some people say--- a group claims (someone else's opinion, outside knowledge)
concession points--despite, although, even tho etc. ( directly from the author, his knowledge)
#Help: Are/can concessions (be) premises?
I believe that concessions are a type of context, "They are claims that the author makes that don't support his argument. If anything, they might hurt his argument." So going off this I do not think they can be a premises. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.
i agree with you!
#help what would be an example of where “even though” is not a concession indicator?
For example it could be part of a premise:
Speed limits are ineffective. The number of car accidents due to speeding keeps increasing, even though the city keeps expanding their speed limits in every street.
"I don't know, the pound of steel looks heavier than the pound of feathers."
"Both sides of the scale are even though"
"Even though the project deadline is next month, we should start working on it immediately to ensure we have ample time for revisions"
That's the best I can do lol
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)
My first thought is "what purpose does this phrase serve" questions on the LSAT.
example:
Q: "What purpose does the statement that the food is unpalatable serve in this passage?" A: to identify a criticism of the argument that the author intends to invalidate
My lawyer does this all the time - it's to strengthen his argument by "getting out in front of it" like JY says and is usually done to undermine the oppositional argument by saying 'hey I know this doesn't make us look good but x and y are why I'm here to ask you to think about these other things.' Now the judge is less interested in what the opposing argument is gonna say bc they already know what it'll be.
*When I read concessions in arguments in the LSAT it honestly works on me too, so I'd think it's to be able to recognize it on the LSAT.
How do you differentiate between concession indicator words and the general context indicator words like But, However
#help (added by Admin)
Concession words seem to serve as not turning the argument, but offer an idea of "this is partially true, but this should be still considered" where as words like but however, negate the previous thing completely, as they are rejecting or turning away from that idea
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.