Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 287 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Rare argument form: the "Tether" assumption
BinghamtonDave
Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
Hey everyone, Across my studies, one thing that I have tried to do with LR is to look at arguments as repetitions of older forms of arguments. Trying to distill the argument in front of us down to something we are familiar with for me has been a real key to building my competence in LR. Competence leads to confidence, which shaves off time. Some of these forms are form that appear on nearly every exam: a sufficient/necessary confusion, the valid argument forms etc. Some are bit more rare.
My test dates are coming up (I’m scheduled to take both the July and the September exams) and I wanted to make a few posts about some specific (albeit rare) argument forms I have come across in my studies. This post will be dedicated to an argument form I have tentatively called the “tether” form. I am unaware of any other effort to specifically isolate and categorize this form or the others I have planned to post on in the coming weeks: although it is certainly possible that others closely studying the exam have indeed done so, maybe others have even named the form.
The basic analogy I want to build on here for the “tether” argument is this:
Imagine I have presented you with the following argument:
The New York Jets football team had an amazing record last year, after all, they finished with the same record as the Chicago Bears last year.
At bottom, I have tethered the claim in my conclusion to an unstated/unknown dock in the premise. A necessary assumption here would be that the Chicago Bears had an amazing record. Because the Jet and the Bears are both equal, if this assumption were not true, we would be tethering the Jets to a non-amazing record, which would defeat the argument. _*Note here to NFL fans, I am aware that in the real world this isn't exactly a necessary assumption because The Jets and Bears are in different divisions and the same record could be worth more in the AFC East etc, nice catch if you were thinking this, but: play along with the general gist of the argument for me please ;-) _
Going further: around this unstated assumption we can construct: weakening answer choices and strengthening answer choices. So in short, before we get into some examples: If I tell you that something is popular or great because it is similar to something else, I better have told you that that other things is popular or great, because by virtue of how a premise functions, I am “tethering” the subject of my conclusion to that in the premise.
Take a look at the structure of PT 56-3-10, where we have this very same outline slightly obscured by the usual LSAT tricks:
-Premise: because we have the same income from sales of t-shirts as these other series
-Conclusion: Our concert has popular appeal
With this knowledge in hand, we can see that what the argument has assumed is that the subject in which we have tethered the subject of our conclusion to in the premise, does indeed possess the property that we discussed in our conclusion.
Remember: because the Jets had the same record as the Bears, therefore the Jets had am amazing record.
We might also be asked to weaken this argument structure.
Pt 51-1-8
Here we conclude: sugar does not cause hyperactivity in population x
On the basis of: the behavior of sugar is tethered to the behavior of sugar substitutes.
Here, the credited response is simply a denial of the tethered assumption. In short: sugar is like a sugar substitute, therefore sugar does not do Y.
There is an infamous example that is slightly more complicated than the others on PT 37-1-19:
Here we have essentially “tethered” hatha yoga to traditional self help groups. And on the basis of that tethering, we conclude that hatha yoga is “powerful.”
There are other arguments that fit this form. These are just a few memorable examples.
In conclusion, my recommendation here would be to take the examples of this form of the argument and study them. Committing this form to memory takes only a few minutes of focused study and paid me dividends on PT 82, where I was able to spot a “tether” argument, answer it quickly and efficiently and move on to other questions that demanded more time from me. If you are able to do the same, please comment below with the question on PT 82 where the tether assumption is located: this is how you will know that you have successfully committed this form to memory. Carrying an understanding of a argument form forward is an important tool on the road to competence on LR.
David
Comments
Just wanted to chime in and say how helpful this analysis is and good luck for July!
Great analysis! JY used the word "pegging" to describe it in the PT82 BR calls, but "tethering" sounds good, too. I just remember the form as:
Argument: "A is effective [or any other adjective], because A is as effective as B."
Assumption: B is effective to begin with.
PT37 is the hardest reincarnation of this form I've yet seen. I was lucky enough to do PT37 right before PT82 and recalled the form when I needed it.
@BinghamtonDave thank you, this is fabulous way to put it into words! I'm taking July as well. Good luck to both of us!
I've been focusing on NA lately, my weakness. In your example of the Jets and the Bears wouldn't "Chicago Bears had an amazing record" be a sufficient assumption? That would made the argument valid. And a necessary assumption would be "the Bears are also a football team" or "the Bears and Jets both have a record"? If the Bears weren't a football team their record wouldn't be comparable to the Jets and if for some reason neither team played all season and they both had a record of 0-0, it wouldn't be an amazing record. Am I way off? Just want some clarity since I'm consistently missing NA questions.
I appreciate your post and this view! I'm going to continue to look for rare argument forms during my studies. I love finding new ways to make the LSAT fun.
David,
Thank you for sharing your insight into a very valuable nuance on how to attack this type of argument. For those of us that were given the gift of your personal explanation on specific questions during our SG BR groups, it was a game changer on strategy to quickly move through the question!
All the best on July
Excellent insight. I remember you talking about these assumptions, and I definitely have "tether" scribbled in my notes. Thanks for writing this up. I'm writing the July test too. Hopefully there is one of these bad boys on the test and we all can nail it!
Best of luck on Monday
Just saw this post and it was very helpful! I looked for it in PT 82 and I think I found it in section 1 question 12 and it was comparing yoga to physical therapy. I employed the technique you used and it worked out great. Thanks!
I was reviewing past LR questions that slowed me down and it seems like PT21 Section 2 Question 5 might fall withing this tethered assumption category.
It’s super helpful to look at different questions and see a recurring pattern in reasoning/argument structure.
@Gladiator_2017 yes, I think so:
simplified argument:
Conclusion: this water is not dangerous
Premise: because it is just like this other water. (that we are not told anything about)
Adding PT46.S3.Q20 to the list!
Conclusion: genetic engineering is not unethical
Premise: genetic engineering is just like selective breeding
@Kermit750
just bumping this...
i think this is a must read!!!
One of my favorites of all time. I miss @BinghamtonDave's posts! I literally remember where I was and what I was doing when this was posted 2 years ago, lol
One thing I want to add to this - and I think @BinghamtonDave touches upon is that this weakening/strengthening association of the tethering argument stems from its NA core nature. The association (or tether) - is essential part of the reasoning in a strengthen/weaken perspective. However, the LSAT writers touch upon this association so lightly - that most folks quickly read it and not understand the significance that it plays in the overall structure of the argument.
@Trusttheprocess very helpful! Thanks for bumping this.
so helpful! Thank you!