Hi! Located in OC and studying for June. Would be happy to meet up and study in-person!

#Feedback for 7Sage

Would benefit from more in-depth/concise information on...

Target Phenomena

• Definition: Is it the first phenomena? Or the main phenomena? (Implicit v. Explicit)

• Tactics/Strategies:

  • If it is implicit, how do we correctly identify the Target Phenomena in arguments/stimuli, especially when considering the convoluted language of stim on the test?

    • I personally refer back to the Grammar lessons and the "kernel" aka subject (main noun) + predicate (main verb) + object (if applicable) but I want to make sure.

    • I also referred back to the original hypothesis (e.g. "Therefore, Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within.") But I feel that it is likely that the arguments on the test will have more modifiers in the sentences and more cluster sentences in the argument as a whole, making it less likely that the Target Phenomena will be this clear.

  • Previous lessons point out the Target Phenomena with certainty but not explanation. (What it is/How to identify it) From the student POV, I see correctly identifying and understanding Target Phenomena as the first step in understanding what we're trying to explain at all.

For the Alternative-Hypothesis:

• Explanation:

  • What should we consider when coming up with our own alternative hypothesis? If we are assuming it is true, then should we conjure an alternative-hypothesis that makes the Target Phenomena true?

  • Does the placement of the alternative-hypothesis in the original argument matter? In both examples, the alternative-hypothesis replaced phenomena, not hypothesis. Coming up with an alternative hypothesis to the target phenomena is very different from adding an additional phenomena claim to the overall argument, especially in terms of assessing the relationship of support.

• Application:

  • I understand that providing an alternative, true explanation to the initial Target Phenomena calls into question the strength of the original hypothesis - but I'm uncertain of how to apply the of truth in the alternative-hypothesis v. the strength of support/explanation in the original hypothesis to come to a concrete answer of what the level of support in the original argument actually is, especially if it exists on a spectrum?

  • Tying this back to the Target Phenomena and the alternative-hypothesis v. original hypothesis...

  ORIGINAL MR FAT CAT ARGUMENT

  1. The trash bin is toppled.

  2. Its contents, including salmon, are spilled.

  3. Fat Cat is perched on the counter.

  4. Fat Cat is licking his paw in the way he does after having eaten.

  5. Therefore, Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within.

  ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS ARGUMENT

  1. The trash bin is toppled. [The kids knocked over the trash.]

  2. Its contents, including salmon, are spilled.

  3. Fat Cat is perched on the counter.

  4. Fat Cat is licking his paw in the way he does after having eaten.

  5. The kids knocked over the Trash.

Both arguments provide information on Fat Cat, Trash, and Kids that inevitably makes it clear that they all exist in relation to the trash being toppled, but it's not clear to me that we are looking to explain the target phenomenon of WHO knocked over the trash or if Mr. Fat Cat is guilty (original argument focuses on Mr. Fat Cat knocking over the trash and eating the salmon within - which makes it clear we're looking for WHO toppled the bin, and if we're adding the alternative-hypothesis to the premise claim (1) The Trash is toppled. and then (2) The kids knocked over the trash, but claims 3-4 provide supporting evidence to explain that Mr. Fat Cat is potentially guilty of being involved with the toppled trash, I am unsure if what we're looking to explain for the target phenomena of [toppled trash] is a question of WHO is guilty or IF Mr. Fat Cat is guilty. I also feel like, "The kids knocked over the trash bin." is true but it doesn't really follow the explanatory framework of a hypothesis?

So I'm even more confused about how to apply this alternative-hypothesis tactic to pursue truth + examine the strength of the support for the explanation (since I'm not super clear on the bounds of what we're looking to explain to begin with are)

• Examples:

  • Echoing the sentiments below that a real LSAT example of causal logic with a stim/question stem/answer choices would be super helpful for this lesson! I understand the gist of this concept, but not quite sure how to apply this tactic to answering a question correctly or how to apply this thinking to a question stem.

@chelseamaripage ... I also just realized that "The kids knocked over the trash bin." is set to replace claim #1. But if this is an alternative-hypothesis framework, why would "The kids knocked over the trash bin" not replace the the original hypothesis? Especially if the form/structure of a Phenomenon-Hypothesis Argument is:

Phenomenon (Premise) > Hypothesis (Conclusion)?

Aren't we just changing the Phenomenon (first claim/first premise) and thus, potentially disrupting finding the correct Target Phenomenon?

Just to confirm, is the Target Phenomena always going to just the first claim/first premise?

For the Mr. Fat Cat argument, I noticed a flaw in my thought process when looking at the modified-alternative hypothesis argument and presumed that "Mr. Fat Cat toppled the trash bin" was the Target Phenomena. I know this is incorrect just by looking at the previous lesson that PHENOMENA = PREMISE and HYPOTHESIS = CONCLUSION.

However, with how LSAT stim is written, can I confidently presume that the first claim/premise is the Target Phenomena? Or should we assess the causal logic argument as a whole and determine what the Target Phenomena is for ourselves? Is it the main phenomena we are trying to find an explanation to or just the first phenomena?

Looking at the modified-alternative hypothesis argument of the Mr. Fat Cat argument:

1. The trash bin is toppled.

2. It's contents including salmon, are spilled.

3. Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter.

4. Mr. Fat Cat is licking his paws in the way he does after having eaten.

5. The kids knocked over the trash bin.

The question of what is the Target Phenomena isn't immediately clear to me because the argument talks about a trash bin, Mr. Fat Cat, and now kids. Ultimately when I assess what these all have in common it's relation to the trash bin being toppled [claim (3) and (4) point to Mr. Fat Cat > licking paws > eating > salmon > from trash] But I also know that stim on the LSAT will have modifiers/cluster sentences that will likely be even more complex, so I am not sure if the Target Phenomenon will always be explicit in the first claim/premise or if it's something more implicit for us to determine when examining the support between PHENOMENON > HYPOTHESIS Arguments.

I realized the correct Target Phenomenon [Toppled Trash Bin] honestly because I referred to the original hypothesis:

"Therefore, Mr. Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within"

Through the original order of the claims + the original hypothesis, I know that Toppled Trash Bin is the Target Phenomena because of how clearly it is emphasized.

Would love any #help or #insight on how others approach this or any critiques/advice to my thought processes!

@TheodoraMace Truth v. Validity

Formal logic arguments are either valid or invalid.

Informal logic arguments are either strong or weak, and the support exists on a spectrum of support (Not true > Could Be True/Could Be Not > Must Be True). Support = do the premises increase the likelihood of truth in the conclusion, and if so, by how much?)

In formal logic we are pursuing validity, In informal logic we are seeking the likelihood of truth.

Validity is a property of arguments (valid/invalid)

Truth is a property of claims (premises, assumptions, conclusions)

The support relationship in a causal logic argument is explanation - our goal is to find the TRUE hypothesis (v. potential hypothesis)

Hope this helps!!

In comparing the Fat Cat argument v. the Dead Dolphins argument, I've found that revisiting the grammar lessons (identifying main noun, main verb, subject/predicate, etc.) and applying it here has helped me determine the strength of the support.

Ex) Fat Cat Argument

1. The trash bin is toppled.

2. Its contents, including salmon, are spilled.

3. Fat Cat is perched on the counter.

4. Fat Cat is licking his paw in the way he does after having eaten.

5. Therefore, Fat Cat knocked over the trash in order to eat the salmon within.

The conclusion (hypothesis) includes:

• main noun/subject: Fat Cat

• main verb/predicate: knocked over the trash

• object: salmon within

Premise #1: includes main verb

Premise #2: includes object

Premise #3: main subject

Premise #4: object

Ex) Dead Dolphins Argument

1. In August of 2010, a pod of two dozen spinner dolphins washed up on Lanikai beach on Oahu.

2. All were dead or dying.

3. Toxic chemicals from a nearby mining operation were to blame.

The conclusion (hypothesis) addresses:

main subject: toxic chemicals (from a nearby mining operation)

main verb: were to blame

The way the conclusion is written depends on not only hypothesis, but also a lot of implications. (What is being "blamed"? How do toxic chemicals from a nearby mining operation get correlated to dead/dying dolphins? The chemicals were never explicitly stated to have spilled into the ocean? How does the proximity of a mining operation provide adequate support?

The form of a phenomenon-hypothesis argument is simply:

PREMISE = PHENOMENON

CONCLUSION = HYPOTHESIS

A occurred and caused (explicit or implicit) B.

Even if the premises are presented as phenomenon (facts or events) and the conclusion as a hypothesis (a potential explanation that might or might not be correct and has to compete with other potential explanations), Since this is INFORMAL LOGIC the focus shouldn't be on the structure/form of an argument since it cannot be valid/invalid, and instead should be on the support.

Hope this helps!