#feedback this isn't necessarily feedback on this specific question, but all questions in general. I would love if there were transcripts of the videos or written explanations instead of just videos with captions.

#feedback There's a typo on the written explanation. The argument summary says "wetlands" instead of woodlands.

slowly backs into bush bc i chose b

#feedback same here. There is no option to print.

I don't think the objective of context is to provide any support at all to the argument. It's background information that informs the reader what's the upcoming argument about. A statement that would support an "argument" (conclusion is more precise) would be a premise.

You’re right. They didn’t say they couldn’t afford to do X, that is my mistake. For 9.1 and 9.2, the conclusion is that it is more challenging to do X, or put it beyond their capabilities to do X. For 9.3, I also made the mistake in saying that what the second sentence is saying means they couldn’t afford to do X, which negates my argument that it puts it in the bounds of a 50/50 chance of true/false therefore the conclusion being unsupported. I will explain, though, further down why I still don’t believe it to be an argument.

Re: Mr. Fat Cat-

The Mr. Fat Cat argument is not analogous to 9.3. If we look at the explanation provided by 7Sage for why 9.3 is not an argument, it says that “The claim about what happened before the price increase isn't offered to help prove what happened after the increase.”

In the cat argument, the premise does offer help to prove why the cat ate the salmon. Not only does it say (I’m paraphrasing here) “Mr. Fat Cat was licking his paws,” but it also mentions that he was licking his paws like how he does when he finishes eating. That last part provides a bit of support (no matter how weak the argument is) to the conclusion. Whereas in 9.3, no part of the first sentence if testing it as the premise, provides support to conclude that a price increase in fuel prices made it costly for them to engage in driving leisurely. I would contend that the only thing in those two sentences that tells us that driving costs more to do is the information that the price for fuel increased, which is found in sentence 2. But you cannot say that sentence 1, which only provides background information that they could afford to do the activity provides support to show that it is more costly. If you claim sentence 2 is the conclusion, then you ask yourself “Why after the price increase was the activity more costly?” And you would have to answer “Because they could afford to drive frequently for leisure before the price increase.” Which doesn’t make sense.

At least in 9.2, for example, you could ask “Why, after the tax regulations were imposed, did it make it more difficult to sustain their business?” And you could answer “Because before the new tax regulations, they could *not maintain their operations without seeking financial assistance.” Which makes sense.

*I said not rather than almost for ease of understanding, because in this case they’re interchangeable in my opinion. Almost being able to do something doesn’t mean you can.

9.1 and 9.2 are similar in that both of their premises, before the rate increases or before the tax regulations, the people could almost afford to do X. Meaning, they couldn't afford to do X. They fell short. So, after the rate increase or tax regulations, there is more of a likelihood that they still could not afford to do X. You could clearly poke holes in this to show why the argument is weak, but remember, assumptions are on a spectrum, and it is more likely that they still could not afford X, after the increase, than that they could afford to do X.

In 9.3, the language is precise, and without realizing this, it will trick you. 9.3 says that before price increases, the people could afford to do X. Let's remember the spectrum of assumptions. If the premise is true, does it mean that the people could no longer afford to do X after the price increase? Sure, but does it make it more likely than not likely? No. It's a 50/50 chance that they could afford to do X or they could not afford to do X after the price increase. On the spectrum of assumptions, when the conclusion has a 50/50 chance of being true or false, it's unsupported, and therefore, it is not an argument.

Thank you for your explanation! That helped me so much. I also do not agree that just because it does not use an indicator word it's not an argument like OP.

Here's how my thought process changed after your comment:

Using your reasoning, in 9.1 the premise is "Before the banks raised their interest rates, people on average incomes could almost afford a mortgage for an amount twice their salary."

The conclusion is "Hence the rate increase has now put mortgages beyond their reach."

We ask ourselves, "Why has the rate increase put mortgages beyond reach?"

The answer: "Because before the banks raised their interest rates, people on average incomes could almost afford a mortgage for blah blah blah" So from the premise, it logically follows that even before the rates, people with average incomes still could not afford their mortgage, therefore, after the increase in rates, it's even harder to afford one.

In 9.3 however, in the premise, it says they could afford to drive their car. So despite the price increases there's a 50/50 chance those people could continue to drive their cars or could not drive their cars. If I have $10, I can afford to buy a candy bar for 50 cents. The next day the price goes up to $1, and I can still afford to buy a candy bar despite the price increase. Therefore, it does not logically follow that a price increase will make me unable to afford the candy bar. Thus, the premise does not support the conclusion and it is not an argument.

Your question had me stumped for a while. If the premise "Tigers are dangerous animals" were true, you could stand to reason that that increases the likelihood of mammals not making good pets. But, you would have to make several assumptions first, for the conclusion to be true if the premise is true. Assumptions do not make an argument, a conclusion and a premise that supports the conclusion make an argument while the assumption(s) or lack thereof dictate how weak/strong the argument is.

Let's take this example from the Skill Builder:

"Job opportunities in the tech industry are expanding. Companies that specialize in developing software and technology solutions are relatively limited in number, while the number of individuals seeking jobs in this industry is rapidly growing."

P1 Companies that specialize in developing software and technology solutions are relatively limited in number.

P2 The number of individuals seeking jobs in this industry is rapidly growing.

C Job opportunities in the tech industry are expanding.

Do the premises support the conclusion? Test each of the premises separately. It doesn't make sense. Are there any assumptions you can make? Can you find a relationship?

I wish there were typed or a video explanation for these questions. :( Getting stumped a bit.

From my understanding, it does not necessarily mean that an assumption must be true for it to be an argument and therefore be a premise supporting a conclusion. The truth of an assumption within the premise merely dictates the strength of an argument.

Assumptions can very well seem reasonable to us, but reasonableness does not mean that it's true unless it is explicitly stated to be true, which in that case would then make it a premise.

I picked Tiger as the first strongest argument. But, in trying to see what makes it weaker than the Disney argument, I believe that it is because although in a world where the premise is true, you could still argue that just because a tiger "can cause serious injuries to people" doesn't necessarily mean it will. For example, you could change tiger to pit bull, and I think you could probably think of more reasons that weaken the argument than reasons that weaken the Disney argument.

Tiger: Not all who have a job are competent at it. After all, my coworker received a poor performance review and is still employed.

Disney: Each person entering a parking garage has to pay $25. Alternatively, employees of Big Corp Business can purchase a parking pass at a discounted rate of $10. Sarah has never paid more than $10 for her parking pass, so she must be an employee of Big Corp Business.

Garbage Can: The drawer in my bathroom is open. Within the drawer, there is a bottle of nail polish gone missing. My sister waltzes past me with freshly painted nails, blowing them dry. My sister took my nail polish to paint her nails.

At first, I wasn't going to comment, but then I decided to sit down to try to write some analogous arguments. This exercise was a lot more challenging than I anticipated, so I'm glad I took the time to do it!

Yes. Say you're reading a longer passage on the test. The passage could tell you many different statements (the premises), all leading up to why those statements support the author's conclusion.

Just like if you were writing an essay. You're not gathering only one piece of evidence to support your main point (also known as your conclusion). When you have multiple pieces of evidence, those are the premises which support your conclusion.

I would agree with davidtimm-9. If "The defendant is guilty" is the premise, how can that support the conclusion that "The fingerprint on the weapon matches the defendant?" Think of how do we get from point A to point B? You can't just make the jump that because the defendant is guilty (A), the fingerprint has to match the defendant's (B) without bringing in your outside knowledge and thinking so abstractly if this were a question on the test. Simply put, if we're trying to get to the truth of if the defendant is guilty or not, we need evidence or support. That support is that the fingerprint matches the defendant's.

From my understanding, since an argument is the premise + conclusion, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet," is not the whole argument. I would say that statement is the conclusion.

I like to think of it in terms of "Why?" or ''because."

If the conclusion is that "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet," WHY is that true? The premise tells us it's because "After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people."

Or, you can rephrase the argument like this:

"Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet because tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people." In this sentence, the conclusion precedes the premise, and we know that because the word "because" indicates to us that the premise will follow that word, so the conclusion has to be before it. Furthermore, "after all" is just another way of indicating to us that the author is about to say the premise.