Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

CREATION
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:46 pm

Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby CREATION » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:15 pm

Presupposes what the argument seeks to establish?

It seems like it would be more appropriate, on the LSAT, to refer to it as supposing what the argument seeks to establish.

When the conclusion is stated in the premises, the argument is not really presupposing it, but rather supposing it. It is not longer an assumption in the argument, it is a premise.

Unclear on this.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby Jeffort » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:01 pm

In the context of informal arguments (for LSAT purposes, LR inductive logic arguments), presuppose and suppose are synonyms.

Not all assumptions are unstated. When analyzing LR arguments, as you probably already know, you have to accept all the stated premises in the argument as true. Since they are presented as is, with nothing offered to establish the truth of a stated premise, by treating the unsupported, unproven in the argument premises as true, you are assuming they are stating things that are true.

CREATION
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby CREATION » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:22 pm

It seems to me that what you said indicates that are premises are really assumptions. They are all presuppositions. As when i read a premise, although i accept it as true, i have not been given evidence that the statement is indeed proven or factual.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby Jeffort » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:33 pm

In LSAT LR land, yeah pretty much.

You are assuming that the stated premises are stating things that are factually true, rather than being lies/fabrications.

When a premise says "Some chemists believe and have publicly stated that pesticides containing chemical XYZ are bad for the environment and can cause cancer", you assume that some chemists actually believe and said that, rather than worrying about whether the author of the argument is making that up and presenting false evidence/lies.

User avatar
albusdumbledore
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby albusdumbledore » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:44 pm

CREATION wrote:It seems to me that what you said indicates that are premises are really assumptions. They are all presuppositions. As when i read a premise, although i accept it as true, i have not been given evidence that the statement is indeed proven or factual.

All premises are assumptions/presuppositions (as in, you'll treat them as if they were true). A sound argument is one in which the premises match experience (i.e. they're empirically true). An unsound argument is one in which they don't.

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby Geetar Man » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:52 pm

albusdumbledore wrote:
CREATION wrote:It seems to me that what you said indicates that are premises are really assumptions. They are all presuppositions. As when i read a premise, although i accept it as true, i have not been given evidence that the statement is indeed proven or factual.

All premises are assumptions/presuppositions (as in, you'll treat them as if they were true). A sound argument is one in which the premises match experience (i.e. they're empirically true). An unsound argument is one in which they don't.



Great point. However, you'll never have to check to see if an argument is sound on the LSAT. One thing you should be able to recognize is validity, I believe. The LSAT is not concerned with if an argument is sound or not.

User avatar
albusdumbledore
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby albusdumbledore » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:55 pm

Geetar Man wrote:
albusdumbledore wrote:
CREATION wrote:It seems to me that what you said indicates that are premises are really assumptions. They are all presuppositions. As when i read a premise, although i accept it as true, i have not been given evidence that the statement is indeed proven or factual.

All premises are assumptions/presuppositions (as in, you'll treat them as if they were true). A sound argument is one in which the premises match experience (i.e. they're empirically true). An unsound argument is one in which they don't.



Great point. However, you'll never have to check to see if an argument is sound on the LSAT. One thing you should be able to recognize is validity, I believe. The LSAT is not concerned with if an argument is sound or not.

Very true, just wanted to make the distinction for the OP since that seemed to be what they were getting at but not totally understanding. Validity is certainly important on the LSAT. Sound/unsound, not so much.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby Jeffort » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:36 pm

albusdumbledore wrote:
Geetar Man wrote:
albusdumbledore wrote:
CREATION wrote:It seems to me that what you said indicates that are premises are really assumptions. They are all presuppositions. As when i read a premise, although i accept it as true, i have not been given evidence that the statement is indeed proven or factual.

All premises are assumptions/presuppositions (as in, you'll treat them as if they were true). A sound argument is one in which the premises match experience (i.e. they're empirically true). An unsound argument is one in which they don't.



Great point. However, you'll never have to check to see if an argument is sound on the LSAT. One thing you should be able to recognize is validity, I believe. The LSAT is not concerned with if an argument is sound or not.


Very true, just wanted to make the distinction for the OP since that seemed to be what they were getting at but not totally understanding. Validity is certainly important on the LSAT. Sound/unsound, not so much.


True.

The LSAT is not concerned with factual accuracy, but rather whether a conclusion is logically justified based on the offered premises.

Straight from the horses mouth, LSAC, in the SuperPrep (paraphrased):

Premises can be challenged on factual accuracy grounds, but such challenges are not a matter of logic.

That means you should not ever be thinking about/questioning the factual/real world truth of premises in the arguments, nor premises presented in answer choices. Notice that many question stems for various question types include the phrase 'if true'.

I've noticed over the years I've been helping students prep that many of them have trouble getting used to the test and answer many LR questions incorrectly BECAUSE they disagree with the factual/real-world truth of a premise in an argument or a premise in an answer choice, and answer questions incorrectly due using that analytical perspective.

In LSAT land you are looking for logical truth, not factual truth.

CREATION
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: Why is Circular Reasoning commonly referred to as...

Postby CREATION » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:56 pm

I am just weirded about by the fact that presupposes is used when the test writers could easily state supposes. I thought it was a fact that a presupposition is an assumption while a supposition is an assumption that is eventually expressed.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cianchetta0, goldenbear2020, Mq666, njames1961, studyingeveryday, VMars and 11 guests