Difference between "the author overlooks the possibility" vs "takes for granted that"

lianafaridnia

Hi! Does anyone know the difference between, "the author overlooks the possibility" vs "takes for granted that" and how can I differentiate it when looking at an argument? Thanks!

Matt Sorr

"The author overlooks the possibility..." implies that the author totally ignored something that could affect their argument. For instance, if you were given this argument:

"You are motivated by snobbery, so I shouldn't believe you when you say that it's not worth staying at a one star hotel."

and the question stem said: "This argument is flawed because the author overlooks the possibility that ___," a correct AC could be something like "the person motivated by snobbery doesn't have a separate, valid reason to recommend that you don't stay at the hotel" (disclaimer: I'm almost positive this AC isn't air tight. I didn't pull it from an actual LR question. It's just the first AC that came to my head). The point is, the author didn't take the AC for granted, he just didn't address it all. It wasn't an assumption of his argument, nor was it implied. It's just something he didn't address and it's something that could hurt his argument.

Alternatively, "The author takes from granted that..." implies that the author assumed something to arrive at their conclusion. They made some type of jump between the premises and the conclusion. It's not that they "overlooked" something, it's more that they thought it was fair to make some sort of assumption. Your job is to call out that assumption. For instance, if you were given this argument:

"The painting is blue. Therefore, the painting is beautiful."

and the question stem said, "This argument is flawed because the author takes for granted that ___," a correct AC could be something like, "because the painting is blue, it is beautiful" (again, this AC might not be perfect because I just made it up). It's not that the author "overlooked" this AC, it was just an unspoken part of their argument. You've got to call it out.

I hope this helps some!

aydinjkarasapan

Last comment summed it up well.

Intuitively the difference makes sense that the two are different.

For example I could say that you took for granted that there was some meaningful difference between the statements "the author overlooks the possibility" vs "takes for granted that." The LSAT seems to imply there is a difference, so you assume there is a difference, at least insofar as the LSAT is concerned.

But it wouldn't make sense if I said that the question you asked in this post overlooked the possibility that there is a difference in meaning between these two sentences--because if you ask me if what the difference is between X and Y, then you are taking it for granted there is a difference, and so must be aware there is a difference.

For example think of a loaded question: "Do you still underreport your taxes?"

This question overlooks the possibility that you have never before underreported your taxes by taking for granted that you have before underreported your taxes.

However now consider this prompt.

It had been previously uncovered that Jason's neighbor had been underreporting their taxes for years, so everyone in the neighborhood knew. Jason asked that neighbor "Do you still underreport your taxes?"

Now Jason is not overlooking the possibility that his neighbor has never underreported his taxes, nor is he taking it for granted that he has. Since one of the premises in this fake stimulus now tells us for sure that the neighbor "had been underreporting their taxes for years" and that "everyone in the neighborhood knew" we have to take it as fact that the neighbor had been underreporting his taxes, and that Jason, as this guy's neighbor, also knows that his neighbor has been underreporting his taxes.

Obviously this is nothing like any stimulus you would get on an LSAT, but hopefully this helps with the difference in meaning between overlooking a possibility versus taking something for granted.

lianafaridnia

@"Matt Sorr" said:
"The author overlooks the possibility..." implies that the author totally ignored something that could affect their argument. For instance, if you were given this argument:

"You are motivated by snobbery, so I shouldn't believe you when you say that it's not worth staying at a one star hotel."

and the question stem said: "This argument is flawed because the author overlooks the possibility that ___," a correct AC could be something like "the person motivated by snobbery doesn't have a separate, valid reason to recommend that you don't stay at the hotel" (disclaimer: I'm almost positive this AC isn't air tight. I didn't pull it from an actual LR question. It's just the first AC that came to my head). The point is, the author didn't take the AC for granted, he just didn't address it all. It wasn't an assumption of his argument, nor was it implied. It's just something he didn't address and it's something that could hurt his argument.

Alternatively, "The author takes from granted that..." implies that the author assumed something to arrive at their conclusion. They made some type of jump between the premises and the conclusion. It's not that they "overlooked" something, it's more that they thought it was fair to make some sort of assumption. Your job is to call out that assumption. For instance, if you were given this argument:

"The painting is blue. Therefore, the painting is beautiful."

and the question stem said, "This argument is flawed because the author takes for granted that ___," a correct AC could be something like, "because the painting is blue, it is beautiful" (again, this AC might not be perfect because I just made it up). It's not that the author "overlooked" this AC, it was just an unspoken part of their argument. You've got to call it out.

I hope this helps some!

This helped so much! I really appreciate it. Thank you.