Differentiation between premise and context

Comments

• 2 Likes

  brigitte Free Trial Member

  June 2018 432 karma

  Premises are reasons that support the conclusion. No, you do not always have to have a premise indicator. You have to think about the content of the sentences and how they relate to the conclusion. If it's something the author is pointing to as a reason for the conclusion, it's support and not merely context.
• 1 Like

  testfromaway Alum Member

  June 2018 280 karma

  A premise indicator is sufficient to indicate the presence of a premise, but it is not necessary! Context is the text within the argument that fills in the spaces around the argument, but it doesn't do the work of linking premises to conclusion. If you ID the conclusion of an argument and ask yourself "why is this true?" the portions of the stimulus that answer that question are the premises.
• 1 Like

  tringo335 Alum Member ⭐

  June 2018 3679 karma

  The above posts are definitely correct a premise does not always have to have an indicator and I've found the toughest questions don't have them but a lot of times there are key words that introduce the premise, the conclusion and context. I jotted down these notes from a lesson from the syllabus:

  Premise indicators:
  given that
  seeing that
  for the reason that
  inasmuch as
  owing to
  as indicated by
  after all,
  on the grounds that

  Conclusion indicators:
  consequently
  therefore
  as a result of
  so
  it follows that
  accordingly
  we may conclude
  entails that
  hence
  thus
  we may infer that
  it must be that
  implies that
  that is why

  Premise indicators (usually with a conclusion):
  For
  Since
  Because

  Context indicators (when switching to argument):
  But
  However
  Although
  'Some [...] say'
• 1 Like

  NovLSAT2019 Alum Member

  June 2018 edited June 2018 620 karma

  Hmm... good question...

  Revisiting the lessons from the "Introduction to Arguments" unit helped me with the second question.

  For me, I look at the context as the frame of the world in which the argument takes place. I noticed that the context and the argument are sort of holistically connected to each other to form/provide a bigger and clearer picture of what's going on within the stimulus.

  (Can I quote stuff from the practice tests? If not, I apologize!)

  For example, this is from 2-2-12, a context might look something like:

  "People have long been fascinated by the paranormal. Over the years, numerous researchers have investigated telepathy only to find that conclusive evidence for its existence has persistently evaded them. Despite this, there are still those who believe that there must be 'something in it' since some research seems to support the view that telepathy exists. However, it can often be shown that other explanations that do comply with known laws can be given. Therefore, it is premature to conclude that telepathy is an alternative means of communication."

  Can you see how it provides a frame of reference for the subsequent conflicting views? Like, it gave some background information that works like a breadboard for the author and his/her opponent to construct functioning circuits for themselves. If you take away their breadboard, their circuits won't really function.

  Basically,

  This is the objective nature of what the world (X) is like right now.
  But some think (A) because (B).
  However, (C) weakens the relationship between (A) and (B).
  Therefore, the conclusion, within the context of the world (X), is (blah)."

  I hope this helps.