@RyanKelly Yup, I would say this is a good example of a concession 😀

@ReaganPressley they could have both, but I would assume that usually they'll have one or the other, but there is no guarantees.

@lemon pie Exactly, it will be a statement that contradicts the conclusion of the author's argument. Another example would be:

"My mom says that I can only have one gaming console. Even though I already have a Playstation 5, I still want to get a gaming PC as well because they're upgradeable, and I can play online with my friends that have PC's."

Chocolate is Willy's favorite candy, which is why he made a whole factory to produce his chocolate. This year, Willy has sold 500 chocolate bars, and he sold them quickly. Because of the good sales this year, Willy is expecting to sell over 1000 chocolate bars next year.

Context: Chocolate is Willy's favorite candy, which is why he made a whole factory to produce his chocolate.

Premise: This year, Willy has sold 500 chocolate bars, and he sold them quickly. Because of the good sales this year...

Conclusion: ...Willy is expecting to sell over 1000 chocolate bars next year.

170 seems pretty realistic if you're already getting 75% accuracy + you have like 6 months to continue practicing, just keep chugging.

@HilarySackor For me, they usually stick out like crazy when I get questions that ask "Which of the following is an assumption that needs to be made for the argument to logically follow?". The thing you have to look for is that these questions will make some kind of claim, and then the conclusion seems to connect to this claim indirectly. So for example:

People that have clean houses do not own messy animals. Peter's house is clean, thus he must not own a pig.

For this argument to logically follow, we must assume that pigs are messy animals. Keep in mind pigs aren't messy because of our common knowledge of how pigs enjoy rolling around in mud, but just because of what the first claim states, and what the conclusion is stating based on the claim. You could say the above example with ANY animal (dog, beaver, cat, etc.) and the assumption would still be the same, but for that animal instead of a pig.

@NaomiSmith so for 1, I'm not sure if you could call that an argument, it's more just like 2 statements. You can think of it like this: who cares that Sarah got paid? and that people who work got paid? Where is the conclusion that ties the two statements together? A sample conclusion for this would be: Thus Sarah is a person who works.

2: This is a good example. You provide 2 possibile ways of buying a car, and the conclusion assumed it was one way rather than the other. There could be room for some doubt because there could possibly be another way to pay for a car perhaps?

3: This is also a good example of an argument. There's support for the conclusion (my hypotheses..behind them.)

Here's an example of an argument that I just created

I got a dog named Barnie. He runs away from me at the park, spins around in circles when he's hungry, and barks a lot. Barnie is the reason why I'm too tired to go hang out with my friends tonight!

Conclusion: Barnie is the reason why I'm too tired to go hang out with my friends tonight!

Premise: I got a dog named Barnie. (Claim just stating who Barnie is, thus it supports the conclusion)

Premise: He runs away from me at the park, spins around in circles when he's hungry, and barks a lot. (These are reasons that support the conclusion of why Barnie makes me tired, and thus why I can't go out with my friends tonight)

@CourtneyMorales My bad, my browser wasn't loading the infographics, but I see what you're referring to now. What it's saying is that arguments use support as the structure to support a conclusion. Kind of like how a house has structural walls (the support) that holds up the roof (the conclusion) of the house. Or at least that's my interpretation of it.

@StephanieSalom So I would say that this argument doesn't make too much sense because the premise doesn't really seem to be supporting the conclusion. If the conclusion was "Therefore there must be a dog around me that got wet in the rain.", that would make sense because it's supported by the premise that you smell a damp dog while sitting in a dog park, and that it had rained a few minutes prior.

To say the dog is stinky (meaning unpleasant smell, or strong smell) just isn't supported because the premises don't mention the positive/negative feelings nor strength of the smell associated with wet dogs, just that you do smell one, that it rained recently, and you're at a dog park so it would make sense why you would smell one.

Hope this makes sense!

@Shannell_E'llan First thing's first, restart your computer. if it's still giving you problems, try a different browser, like Chrome, Edge, or Safari. I would assume that this site is probably best built for Chrome, but I'm using safari. Also try another device to see if you have the same problem, if so, it might be your internet connection.

@CourtneyMorales the premise and the conclusion are the two things that every argument will consist of.

Im James from FL, trying to get a 180 (or as close to it) on the February LSAT. My current strong suit is RC, but my LC needs quite a bit of work as I'm missing around 10 questions in each section. Anyone want to create a study group?