On the Spectrum of Support, I see that "unsupported" is on the far right with the "weak arguments". I thought that the definition of an argument is premise + conclusion (a statement that SUPPORTS another statement and a statement that IS SUPPORTED by another statement). So, how can "unsupported" be an option as an argument?
Relatedly, could you please tell me whether the following is an argument:
"Dalmations have spots. Therefore, my dog must be a Dalmation."
I ask because this seems like an example of an unsupported argument, if such a thing exists. The writer has a clear message ("My dog is a Dalmation"), but the previous statement doesn't really support the conclusion. If we make a ton of unreasonable assumptions (my dog has spots, the only dogs with spots are Dalmatians, etc.), the first statement can be considered a premise but that feels wrong.
Hey fellow LSAT Takers and aspiring Lawyers, I started doing this a little while ago with my laptops split screen feature. It's nothing too advanced or anything like that just the regular Notepad Software on the computer. It really puts everything into perspective so to speak and can be easily copy and pasted as a template. Upgraded Version Below. Three methods to identify premises and conclusions
- Just get to the point (Conclusion) =
- Reason For Believing This Claim. (Why?) (Gives Support or Premise) =
⦁ Indicators =
⦁ Concession =
Definition: A concession is an acknowledgment by the author that the opposing viewpoint has some valid points or merit.
Definition: The author's point, or main point, is the central claim, opinion, or conclusion that the author is trying to prove or advocate for throughout the passage or stimulus.
I don't see anything in here about the complex arguments and how a claim can be both a sub-conclusion/major premise. Might be something to add in a reworked summary video.
This lesson was amazing and simple to understand. Now, can we get this argument summary in a pdf so that we can put it on a poster. Or could 7Sage just sell the posters? I would gladly buy to hang up. Come on 7Sage, let's get this poster idea going. :)
Question regarding the terminology "number of assumptions."
Aside from cases like the "Disney World Argument" where no assumptions were possible, is the theoretical number of assumptions possible for most arguments not infinite? Granted, the number of these which will be considered reasonable is very limited, but could one not create an immense number of unreasonable assumptions which could adversely affect the strength of an argument?
(OR, are relevant assumptions highlighted only because they would play a role in the arguments relative strength?)
For example, if I say "Not all mammals are suited to be good house pets, after all tigers are aggressive and prone to causing physical harm to humans," would one actually have to consider the assumption of "bodily harm is bad and to be avoided" as a necessary assumption of the argument? What about the assumption "Most mammals could not inflict bodily harm on me, because I am strong."
Along the support and assumption spectrum, is it strong premises that leave no assumption what creates strong, must be true arguments. Or is the the few or lack of assumptions that make a strong argument? (Are premises or assumption more important to making a strong argument?)
This is probably an overly broad question, but what makes an assumption reasonable versus unreasonable? Are there certain things to look out for?
#help
0
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!
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.
68 comments
On the Spectrum of Support, I see that "unsupported" is on the far right with the "weak arguments". I thought that the definition of an argument is premise + conclusion (a statement that SUPPORTS another statement and a statement that IS SUPPORTED by another statement). So, how can "unsupported" be an option as an argument?
Relatedly, could you please tell me whether the following is an argument:
"Dalmations have spots. Therefore, my dog must be a Dalmation."
I ask because this seems like an example of an unsupported argument, if such a thing exists. The writer has a clear message ("My dog is a Dalmation"), but the previous statement doesn't really support the conclusion. If we make a ton of unreasonable assumptions (my dog has spots, the only dogs with spots are Dalmatians, etc.), the first statement can be considered a premise but that feels wrong.
Does anybody have a public Quizlet with similar questions below to help study with? The questions below are super helpful! :)
If using Mac you can open the diagram and go: Shift + Command + 3 to screenshot the entire thing and print it out.
- Just get to the point (Conclusion) =
- Reason For Believing This Claim. (Why?) (Gives Support or Premise) =
⦁ Indicators =
⦁ Concession =
Definition: A concession is an acknowledgment by the author that the opposing viewpoint has some valid points or merit.
Definition: The author's point, or main point, is the central claim, opinion, or conclusion that the author is trying to prove or advocate for throughout the passage or stimulus.
this is giving me Khan Academy vibes with the diagrams and I appreciate the visuals with the audio, thank you
quiz i made to help reenforce the material: What is the aim of an argument as described in the diagram?
How is a premise defined in this framework?
How does a conclusion differ from a premise?
What does it mean when one claim supports another claim?
What determines the strength of an argument in relation to assumptions?
What happens to an argument when one of its assumptions is false?
What is a forgotten premise or missing link in an argument?
Which question helps identify a conclusion using the first method shown?
Which question helps identify a premise using the second method shown?
Name three indicators that usually introduce a conclusion.
Name three indicators that usually introduce a premise.
Which indicators can introduce a premise but also contain a conclusion?
How does the word but function in context according to the diagram?
What purpose does a concession serve?
Give 3 indicator of a concession.
I don't see anything in here about the complex arguments and how a claim can be both a sub-conclusion/major premise. Might be something to add in a reworked summary video.
This lesson was amazing and simple to understand. Now, can we get this argument summary in a pdf so that we can put it on a poster. Or could 7Sage just sell the posters? I would gladly buy to hang up. Come on 7Sage, let's get this poster idea going. :)
the diagram is not loading for me :( anyone else having the same issue?
if 7sage made the file below a poster i could hang in my room i'd 100% buy it.
This is perfect. Dissecting the LSAT like this makes it seem easy! (But I know the LSAT IS HARD-first lesson)
This makes my head spin :-/
Has anyone found a way to print? I tried and it just says embedded code?
Does anyone know how to save/print a copy of the chart? I'm trying to attach it to my master review sheet!
This lesson and diagram was incredibly helpful
This is incredibly helpful in breaking down the LSAT formula. I've been looking for someone to explain things like this everywhere. Thank you so much!
Question regarding the terminology "number of assumptions."
Aside from cases like the "Disney World Argument" where no assumptions were possible, is the theoretical number of assumptions possible for most arguments not infinite? Granted, the number of these which will be considered reasonable is very limited, but could one not create an immense number of unreasonable assumptions which could adversely affect the strength of an argument?
(OR, are relevant assumptions highlighted only because they would play a role in the arguments relative strength?)
For example, if I say "Not all mammals are suited to be good house pets, after all tigers are aggressive and prone to causing physical harm to humans," would one actually have to consider the assumption of "bodily harm is bad and to be avoided" as a necessary assumption of the argument? What about the assumption "Most mammals could not inflict bodily harm on me, because I am strong."
QUESTION ... im having trouble understanding assumptions. they will never be provided but instead ... we will have to think of them on our own?
#feedback
Could we get a pdf version of the Miro board so that we could print it?
Thank you :)
This is such a bad note format
Anyone know how I can download a copy of this board to my iPad?
nice
Along the support and assumption spectrum, is it strong premises that leave no assumption what creates strong, must be true arguments. Or is the the few or lack of assumptions that make a strong argument? (Are premises or assumption more important to making a strong argument?)
This is good. I like this.
This is probably an overly broad question, but what makes an assumption reasonable versus unreasonable? Are there certain things to look out for?
#help