How is the principle of contexts in this sense different form assumptions

Okay this is kind of a dumb question but why does the course give us practice tests that do not have an argument? How does it help with the LSAT? (genuine quesiton)

From this section, I learned about assumptions. Assumptions are gaps that bridge the rationale of premises and conclusions in arguments. (If not stated, what we derive from the claims are assumptions.) The strength of an argument depends on the key assumption that premises are always true, and therefore, conclusions are also true. If we take an already established inference, or if we see irregularities between premises and conclusions, we find that this weakens the overall argument.

In this section, I learned that the spectrum of support can range between week to strong;

- The truthfulness of premises proceed the truthfulness of the conclusion.

- If premises are true, then conclusion is likely to be true. Strong Arguments are a restatement of valid inferences. Weak arguments are ones that are unsupported, hence are not valid.

- Truthfulness, or validity essentially all depends on the strength of the support of the premise.

All arguments fall in a section of hte part of the truthfulness and validity of arguments:

1. The Disney Argument is the strongest argument because of the strength of its premises, making it valid.

2. The Tiger Argument is a strong argument, that is most likely true, but can kind of change based on the premise + only one "real" premise is presented, so the strength of the argument is not as strong as the Disney Argument.

3. Fat Cat Argument is a weak argument because all of the premises are based on assumptions through observations, and not actual evidences, making the premises weak, resulting to a faulty conclusion, and is therefore, a weak argument overall.

I think that the trash/cat analogus is the weakest argument, because it does not have any inherent proof based on the subject itself, and is only based on observation. The cat/trash analogus is concluded by assumptions.

1 yard of polyester is derived out of 500 grams of rat poison. Rat poison is not good for humans, hence, we shouldn't use polyester anymore.

Disney Analogus:

Berkley requires students to have a 3.9 GPA to qualify for admissions. A substitute for this requirement, if not achieved can be a $20,000 bribe to the Donatella Foundation. Desiree does not have a 3.9 GPA but was admitted into Berkley. The only rational reason for Desiree's admission is her paying the $20,000 bribe to the Donatella Foundation.

Causation Logic:

Callie's dresser was messed up. Its contents, including her training shirts and gym socks were scattered on the floor. Amanda, was seen leaving Callie's room with a stuffed duffle bag.

Therefore, Amanda went through Callie's room, stuffing her bag with Callie's clothes.

Henry and Finch live in a fish tank together. Cara, their owner had not fed Henry nor Finch in two days. Henry and Finch were left alone for three days. Cara came home to only Finch left in the tank. Therefore, Finch ate Henry.

This was really helpful and encouraging. I feel like the prelude to the actual courses was super hard (I realize that I am just starting, and that it will be hard), but breaking it down to simpler pieces like this that I was able to understand just makes me think I can push through and ace the exam. Wishing everyone encouragement and luck 🍀