Another way to think about the flaw (other than the explanation given: what we know vs. what others know) is that social theorists are brought up in the conclusion but not in the premises. There is a gap that exists here - it goes from fact to beliefs of social theorists. So the answer should address that gap.
When there's something new in the conclusion that was not brought up in the premises, there is some assumption or gap that has not been addressed.
why is it when I want to pause the video to review the stimulus it always goes black and sometimes it doesn't super irritating. I want to be able to read the stimulus without all the talking to try and compare my analysis of the stimulus before the instructor provides his.
For those who feel bad about skipping a question, remember that it is fine to pick an option at random. Leaving an answer blank or wrong does not dock any points. However because each choice is a 20% chance of being right, its more worthwhile to 'roll that die' by picking an answer.
TL/DR: Like with the previous question, sometimes the on-paper logic presented in flaw questions actually check out (this is when your Spidey senses should be going off). It should signal a shift from your diagram to the actual verbiage used in the stimulus. In this case, homie is making a claim about what social theorists believe. This is the epicenter of the flaw; you can state facts about a certain subject all day long, but attempting to forcefully merge a fact with what people (social theorists) should believe is faulty.
It's easier to think about it like this - Everyone knows that apples are fruit (not a state secret). So naturally, everyone that knows this information should also know that fruits are the healthiest food type....right? Wrong. Your knowledge of a fact or the "logic chain" that follows doesn't impact what other people believe (someone simply may not believe/know that "fruits are the healthiest food type").
This doesn't make sense to me. Can we have another example for the E flaw?
Here is an argument that exemplifies the flaw in (E)
If every person is exclusively self-interested, then government by consent is impossible. Some social theorists conclude from this that government by consent is impossible. [Assumption: people are exclusively self-interested] But there are many thriving governments by consent around the world. [Social theorists’ conclusion is false.] Hence, people must not be exclusively self-interested. [Not necessarily. People could be exclusively self-interested. It could be that self-interest does not imply that government by consent is impossible.]
What is everyone's approach for these longer videos? I find that it is harder for me to follow just watching the video but not sure if I should skim the text once the video starts to click?
I saw the second flaw, about the application of imply vs infer, but it was more intuitive and I wpuldn't have been able to predict an answer with words. I also just did not catch the what we know vs what others know at all. That's a great thought to keep in my brain bank going forward!
This one is interesting because of the glaring substantive issue in the sub conclusion. I was expecting a flaw like, "assumes without warrant that people who are exclusively self interested could never consent to be governed in order to serve that self interest." Other flaw questions have allowed a substantive issue like this one to be the flaw. But not only is the answer about a different flaw, it glosses over the error by also calling the unwarranted claim an implication. For strategy, we can't assume everything in the stimulus is true, because, well, it's a flaw question, and we can't simply look at structural issues with the argument, because we've seen specific substantive issues represent flaws before. I think it's just a matter of seeing that there is another flaw, and recognize that the general description of the flaw doesn't require the implication to be unwarranted or to require an assumption gap.
Can someone explain why this is not a whole-to-part flaw? Maybe I am assuming wrong that the view explained in the first sentence is a view that belongs to everyone?
@MarkTorres an example of a whole to part flaw would be something along the line of social theorists are the smartest group of theorists out there, therefore everyone that is a social theorist is smarter than everyone else. just because the whole group of social theorists collectively are the smartest among all theorists does not mean they are all individually the smartest people. our stimulus argument doesn't do anything similar to this they just say the social theorists that believe one thing evidently believe that democracy is futile. No where in the argument does the author make a statement about the whole of social theorists who believe democracy is futile and than go on to make an assumption about those individually within the set.
So is it basically like, just because some one has one belief, we don’t know the full extent of it? Such as they might believe in exceptions or different outcomes?
I got the answer right intuitively and the video over explained it to the point where I was confused. I feel like breaking up the logic would take more time than just going with my gut. Do other people feel the same, or am I missing some other important point from this video?
P1: some view of every person being super selfish-> /gov by consent
Conc: Social theorists who believe people who are super selfish also believe that democracy is pointless
P2: /gov by consent-> /democracy
This makes no sense to me until I realized P1 isn't a true conditional its an "implication". (Idk why but I just thought of that scene in Its always sunny"
So analogous to that scene it isnt a direct clear statement more of an unspoken thing. why is why its unfair to land on the conclusion of yes these social theorist evidently believe this....Because it was an implication.....
@IsabelleSantiago skip ahead and check out the flaw list, and then come back to it. I solved every question n the flaw list and came up with my own examples for the flaws and came back to this and it just kinda clicked
I thought the answer was C since that's what we've been doing for the past few questions... not sure why its not given that it's applying it to the population
@ConqueringLSAT The answer isn't C here, because we don't know anything about each individual member of the group of social theorists. This type of flaw requires something to be said as true about each member of a group, and then a conclusion making an assumption that the group as a whole also has this view / assumption.
How do we translate this into a conditional statement: "since democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent.". I thought "not" indicated negation so group 4 negate necessary: absence of gov by consent -> democracy is possible (cause double negation of not)?
I feel like I'm always better at dealing with these abstract questions than with the concrete weakening questions, even though they are just the same question with different phrases.
@CamilleChmura we got tricked bc they used "implies" in one part and then stated a bunch of true facts, but we actually couldn't apply any of those facts because the "implies" part was subjective and weakened the argument
My favorite part of the explanation is J.Y saying that if it still sounds weird, then don't worry, it is not that weird. Thanks, bro, that cleared everything up lol.
I wonder how effective the time spent on breaking down the analogous argument vs breaking down the actual argument in the stimulus was. Like I understand the point of creating the analogous argument, but then you break down the analogous argument to point us to the answer and then just draw arrows matching it to the stimulus. IMO would be more effective if you broke down the stimulus instead of the analogous argument to direct us to the answer. I got the answer right, but i think the stimulus' description "evidently believes that aspiring to democracy is futile" was ripe for dissecting here but we instead spent the time discussing seed bearing fruits. Idk maybe i'm just spending too much time on here.
The argument assumes that because you believe that people act only in their own self interest, government consent is not possible, so therefore you MUST believe that government consent is not possible. The flaw in this argument is that just because you believe 1 thing, doesn't immediately mean you also must beleive everything that this 1 thing implies. therefore, A is right.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
80 comments
Another way to think about the flaw (other than the explanation given: what we know vs. what others know) is that social theorists are brought up in the conclusion but not in the premises. There is a gap that exists here - it goes from fact to beliefs of social theorists. So the answer should address that gap.
When there's something new in the conclusion that was not brought up in the premises, there is some assumption or gap that has not been addressed.
why is it when I want to pause the video to review the stimulus it always goes black and sometimes it doesn't super irritating. I want to be able to read the stimulus without all the talking to try and compare my analysis of the stimulus before the instructor provides his.
For those who feel bad about skipping a question, remember that it is fine to pick an option at random. Leaving an answer blank or wrong does not dock any points. However because each choice is a 20% chance of being right, its more worthwhile to 'roll that die' by picking an answer.
TL/DR: Like with the previous question, sometimes the on-paper logic presented in flaw questions actually check out (this is when your Spidey senses should be going off). It should signal a shift from your diagram to the actual verbiage used in the stimulus. In this case, homie is making a claim about what social theorists believe. This is the epicenter of the flaw; you can state facts about a certain subject all day long, but attempting to forcefully merge a fact with what people (social theorists) should believe is faulty.
It's easier to think about it like this - Everyone knows that apples are fruit (not a state secret). So naturally, everyone that knows this information should also know that fruits are the healthiest food type....right? Wrong. Your knowledge of a fact or the "logic chain" that follows doesn't impact what other people believe (someone simply may not believe/know that "fruits are the healthiest food type").
This doesn't make sense to me. Can we have another example for the E flaw?
Here is an argument that exemplifies the flaw in (E)
What is everyone's approach for these longer videos? I find that it is harder for me to follow just watching the video but not sure if I should skim the text once the video starts to click?
I saw the second flaw, about the application of imply vs infer, but it was more intuitive and I wpuldn't have been able to predict an answer with words. I also just did not catch the what we know vs what others know at all. That's a great thought to keep in my brain bank going forward!
This one is interesting because of the glaring substantive issue in the sub conclusion. I was expecting a flaw like, "assumes without warrant that people who are exclusively self interested could never consent to be governed in order to serve that self interest." Other flaw questions have allowed a substantive issue like this one to be the flaw. But not only is the answer about a different flaw, it glosses over the error by also calling the unwarranted claim an implication. For strategy, we can't assume everything in the stimulus is true, because, well, it's a flaw question, and we can't simply look at structural issues with the argument, because we've seen specific substantive issues represent flaws before. I think it's just a matter of seeing that there is another flaw, and recognize that the general description of the flaw doesn't require the implication to be unwarranted or to require an assumption gap.
Can someone explain why this is not a whole-to-part flaw? Maybe I am assuming wrong that the view explained in the first sentence is a view that belongs to everyone?
@MarkTorres an example of a whole to part flaw would be something along the line of social theorists are the smartest group of theorists out there, therefore everyone that is a social theorist is smarter than everyone else. just because the whole group of social theorists collectively are the smartest among all theorists does not mean they are all individually the smartest people. our stimulus argument doesn't do anything similar to this they just say the social theorists that believe one thing evidently believe that democracy is futile. No where in the argument does the author make a statement about the whole of social theorists who believe democracy is futile and than go on to make an assumption about those individually within the set.
So is it basically like, just because some one has one belief, we don’t know the full extent of it? Such as they might believe in exceptions or different outcomes?
I got the answer right intuitively and the video over explained it to the point where I was confused. I feel like breaking up the logic would take more time than just going with my gut. Do other people feel the same, or am I missing some other important point from this video?
@MallikaMalhotra that could be a shot in the dark and risky
What the hell was this stem?
P1: some view of every person being super selfish-> /gov by consent
Conc: Social theorists who believe people who are super selfish also believe that democracy is pointless
P2: /gov by consent-> /democracy
This makes no sense to me until I realized P1 isn't a true conditional its an "implication". (Idk why but I just thought of that scene in Its always sunny"
So analogous to that scene it isnt a direct clear statement more of an unspoken thing. why is why its unfair to land on the conclusion of yes these social theorist evidently believe this....Because it was an implication.....
I am really struggling on these... I am scared
@IsabelleSantiago skip ahead and check out the flaw list, and then come back to it. I solved every question n the flaw list and came up with my own examples for the flaws and came back to this and it just kinda clicked
Is this lesson really kicking anyone else
I thought the answer was C since that's what we've been doing for the past few questions... not sure why its not given that it's applying it to the population
@ConqueringLSAT The answer isn't C here, because we don't know anything about each individual member of the group of social theorists. This type of flaw requires something to be said as true about each member of a group, and then a conclusion making an assumption that the group as a whole also has this view / assumption.
How do we translate this into a conditional statement: "since democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent.". I thought "not" indicated negation so group 4 negate necessary: absence of gov by consent -> democracy is possible (cause double negation of not)?
@SamidhaSinghal [/consent --> /dem] [dem-->consent]
I feel like I'm always better at dealing with these abstract questions than with the concrete weakening questions, even though they are just the same question with different phrases.
what is going on
@CamilleChmura we got tricked bc they used "implies" in one part and then stated a bunch of true facts, but we actually couldn't apply any of those facts because the "implies" part was subjective and weakened the argument
#feedback It would be helpful to view the data for this question in the lesson itself (time it should take, difficulty, etc)
Guys im finally getting it :,) WE GOT THIS
My favorite part of the explanation is J.Y saying that if it still sounds weird, then don't worry, it is not that weird. Thanks, bro, that cleared everything up lol.
I wonder how effective the time spent on breaking down the analogous argument vs breaking down the actual argument in the stimulus was. Like I understand the point of creating the analogous argument, but then you break down the analogous argument to point us to the answer and then just draw arrows matching it to the stimulus. IMO would be more effective if you broke down the stimulus instead of the analogous argument to direct us to the answer. I got the answer right, but i think the stimulus' description "evidently believes that aspiring to democracy is futile" was ripe for dissecting here but we instead spent the time discussing seed bearing fruits. Idk maybe i'm just spending too much time on here.
Got this one right away and didn't even look at the other answers. A WIN!
After getting the last one wrong, I am happy to be back!!
Could someone explain this in a more succinct way? I'm very confused :(
The argument assumes that because you believe that people act only in their own self interest, government consent is not possible, so therefore you MUST believe that government consent is not possible. The flaw in this argument is that just because you believe 1 thing, doesn't immediately mean you also must beleive everything that this 1 thing implies. therefore, A is right.
THANK YOU
could have saved myself 18 minutes if i just scrolled to the comments thank you so so much !!
Thank you! The explanation in the video was so drawn out that I got lost.