#feedback

One question/note I have. Assuming that order in fact does not matter - couldn't claim 3 "Fluffers is adorable" also be the main conclusion? If order does not matter why can't it be:

1. Premise: All dogs are adorable.

2. Premise: Premise: All adorable things are cute.

3. Premise: Fluffers is a dog.

4. Sub-conclusion: Fluffers is cute.

5. Conclusion: Therefore, Fluffers is adorable.

#help

7.1 - "The true annual rate of earnings on an interest-bearing account is the annual rate of interest less the annual rate of inflation. Consequently, if the rate of inflation drops, the rate of interest can be reduced by an equal amount without there being a change in the true rate of earnings."

I don't understand how 7.1 is an argument. It feels similar to 6.1 in that the first statement is a statement of background info and the second is another statement of fact. I understand that the word "consequently" is an indicator of a conclusion - but I fail to see what is actually being argued?

The Disney Vacation Club argument is the strongest argument of the three because it defines the two situations in which a vacation club member can earn a Genie+ pass, and then it asserts that Walt, a Vacation Club member and Genie+ pass holder, did not engage in one of the two methods listed. That leaves only one possible option.

The Tiger argument is the next strongest because it begins with a reasonable conclusion, and then offers an example (premise/support) that satisfactorily justifies the position taken in the conclusory claim.

The Trash Bin argument is the weakest because it describes a sequence of events only after they happened. No one witnessed the trash bin fall over, and no one knows if the cat was actually responsible for knocking it over in order to access the salmon within. While it is a reasonable assumption that the cat is guilty given the fact that he was the only individual in the room when the incident was discovered, and that he was seen licking his paws in the same manner in which he does after eating, the detective can not know for certain that the cat was guilty without having a witness. Who's to say that a clumsy passerby did not accidentally knock over the trash bin, and that the gluttonous cat merely happened to be in the right place at the right time?

Tiger:

Not all pools contain chlorine. After all, Noah's pool contains salt water only.

Disney:

Sam is a part-time student and treats himself to Dave and Busters after every exam he gets an A on. Sam is also a part-time contractor and treats himself to Dave and Busters after every project he finishes. On Friday, Sam treated himself to Dave and Busters. His semester ended over a month ago. Therefore, Sam must have just completed a project.

Fat Cat:

This morning before I left for work, I left a pile of cash in my bedroom on my desk. I made sure to lock my apartment before I left. When I came back home this evening, my apartment was locked and everything seemed normal until I walked in to my bedroom to see that the cash was missing. The only other person who has a key to my apartment is my girlfriend. She must have come over and taken the cash when I was gone.

I think the reason why so many people get stumped on this is because in primary school we get it drilled into our heads that the conclusion should always come at the end of whatever we are reading or writing. But the reality is that substance matters far more than presentation. I believe that the importance of this lesson is that writing is an important component of the legal profession and people have varying styles and preferences. You will encounter prose that is not always intuitive. This is the LSAT's way of measuring your capacity to read and write like an attorney.

I'm still confused as to why B is not analogous. The way it is analyzed here makes it seem analogous and very similar to C. Can someone please explain?

Enough with the Jedi example...execute Order 66

#help

So is the subscript ("h" in this example) never assigned to the conditional (first) premise in Lawgic translation? In my initial translation before reading through the rest of the lesson I wrote:

hSC → hI

h/I

h/SC

Basically what I am asking is, am I understanding correctly that "h" (or any other subscript) would not go in the first premise (conditional premise) under any circumstances for conditional and contrapositive arguments?

I've tried to register for both and I am unable to. Inputted my 7sage email address and an error message popped up saying only registered users can register. I have a Core subscription

I am so confused... particularly #18, why kick up the sufficient condition ?? How does that help at all, if the point of "kicking up" is to clarify the suff → nec conditional relationship? This exercise was so frustrating. I feel like I took 2 big steps forward over the previous few lessons and 5 giant steps backwards after attempting this BS... I mean SB sorry for venting, lol.

#feedback

I really like this course so far. Very helpful and insightful in an engaging and fun way. I get bored out of my mind simply reading material, which causes me to lose focus and become disengaged. The videos, interesting/fun examples, and interaction with the community of 7Sage has really eased my studying. Only constructive criticism I have is to improve some of the UI features noted by other students, e.g. the ability to highlight text within notes

This is happening to me as well. I have attempted to link them through both Chrome and Safari. Each time I try I get an error message saying the accounts are already linked, but here in 7Sage is still says they are not linked.

#help

For Qs 6.1 - 6.3 - So essentially a 'contextual argument' is something that may read like a conclusion / sub-conclusion, but fundamentally is not a conclusion - they generally segue into conclusions? Is that an accurate way of thinking about contextual arguments?

Many students find repetitive and long-winded exercises to be annoying [minor premise]. Often times when students get annoyed, they also get mildly infuriated [sub-conclusion/major premise]. Being mildly infuriated is not good for a student's morale [major premise]. Therefore, I would conclude with a valid degree of certainty, that these exercises were a detriment to the morale of many students. [main conclusion]