I've only read the DVC and Fat Cat argument so far but here's why I think they're different:

DVC is a very air tight argument. It has set necessary requirements (you have to be apart of the vacation club to have a genie+ pass) and sufficient requirements (if you have a pass you must of done 1 or 2 things). The DVC argument works off of conditional logic.

Mr. Fat Cat's argument however relies on causation logic. Fat Cat is licking his paws like he does after he eats, he must have pushed the can over! But this effect (he's licking his paws) and cause (ate the salmon out of the can) are one of a million explanations. There could've been another cat!

Also, the hypothetical conclusion for the fat cat is very detailed, to fulfill it Fat Cat must have:

• intentionally knocked over the bin

• to access the fish

Having two parts to a conclusion makes things harder to prove and easier to defend against :P

@VictoriaNwankwo Np, I'm so glad it helped!!! Happy studying :]

@OmarKhayat I got this one wrong too and had the exact same line of reasoning. From what I can see from JY's explanation, the problem isn't the end of the sentence, but specifically what it emphasizes.

We're focusing on the "languages from various regions and eras" part of the premise and the "existed across different civilizations over time" part of the conclusion. Problem is, these are only small parts of both statements.

The strong claim in our conclusion is

Human communication is a universal phenomenon

The emphasis in our premise/claim is

Linguists have conducted comparative analyses of traditional languages.

If you break it down to these strong emphases, they no longer have any kind of supportive relationship. Even adding the connection we noticed from the various languages, regions, and areas isn't enough to make part A of the conclusion more likely to be true.

Hope this helps! Certainly helped me to write out and explain to myself haha

The LSAT loooooooves to do this. In LR I've gotten tripped up on the small details in wording that make the difference between a premise and conclusion.

One thing I'm going to try and do to learn that difference is verbally recognizing prem-con connections in drills until it becomes automatic. If anyone's tried this lmk how it's going!

Statements support statements to support statements. - An Argument Lol

Here's my shot at an example of prem-conclusion

I worked 10 hours today; I'm exhausted.

Premise: I worked 10 hours today. ( Supports by giving an explanation of why I'm exhausted)

Conclusion: I'm exhausted. (Receives support through an explanation)

Ok y'all, I think in metaphors and analogies a lot to help me grasp ideas. Here's an analogy for an argument that's helping me rn: An argument is like a car (stay with me).

It's aiming for a certain destination (the conclusion).

But to work, a car needs gas and good tires. If there's no gas (no premise), then the car can't move towards the conclusion.

The tires of the car are the claims. Every car has tires. But do those tires have good tread? Do they have a nail in them? Have enough air pressure? If the claims of the argument are flawed, the argument will have a hard time supporting the conclusion and vice versa. Same goes for a car, if the tires (the claims) are flat or otherwise not in working order, the car can't get to the destination or won't get there well.

Hope this helps someone, lmk if you have any good analogies for remembering what an argument is! Plz and ty

I don't think I quite understand how relationships between phenomenons and hypothesis' work. Does a hypothesis sprout from a phenomenon? Or does a phenomenon support a hypothesis? It seems there's so many ways to interpret the two.

Does anyone have a good rule of thumb for understanding how Phe-Hypos mix?

Immediately from the phrase “most vulnerable to criticism” I know that this is a flaw question. So, I want to approach it by finding the lynch claim and highlighting the conclusion

The conclusion here is: “there can be no complete theory of aesthetics"

The lynch claim comes in the prepositional phrase in front of the conclusion: “Since the work of these rebellious artists is beautiful but outside the bounds of the aesthetic theory then current"

Now we can approach the answer choices:

A is irrelevant to the argument. The first premise states that 18th century European aesthetics had been reasonably successful in providing an understanding of all art, not just traditional art. Moreover, an understanding doesn’t denote an “account of beauty”. Ergo, irrelevant.

B is incorrect because this isn’t assumed in the argument. The rebellious artists rebelled against “earlier notions of art” which can be inferred as notions created at least some part due to 18th century European aesthetic theory. Moreover, even if this presumption were true it wouldn’t affect the conclusion; the argument would be sound.

C is irrelevant to the argument. This one is tricky, because the argument does make the jump from 18th century aesthetic theory to complete theory of aesthetics. So this AC is nearing the right flaw, however the key word here is “applied”. The argument makes no claim about the application of aesthetic theory, only about its range of understanding. The application of aesthetic theory from one place to another isn’t relevant to the argument.

D is irrelevant to the argument because the stimulus never implies that the 1960s art is the only art that cannot be adequately addressed by 18th century European aesthetics, just that it is one example. There could be more, it might just be that, we don’t know.

E is correct. The argument makes a generalization that the 18th century European aesthetics is an encompassing theory of aesthetics. There are no premises to support this generalization, and if the following flaw from E is pointed out, the argument would be severely weakened.