Pt 21 section 3 #8

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Pt 21 section 3 #8

Postby ltowns1 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:56 am

This is a valid argument??? I kinda see it but I kinda don't. Can Someone help me see why this is a valid argument, and secondly it seems as if almost always when a valid argument appears it seems like a conditional relationship appears in the stimulus. Is there somehing else that I should look for?

Note: I always have a little trouble distinguishing the few valid arguments that appear on the test.
Last edited by ltowns1 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dave Hall
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Re: Pt 21 section 3 #8

Postby Dave Hall » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:27 pm

21.3.8 is not a valid argument, but I don't really think it's the argument you intended to ask about. 21.3.8 is Eva + Luis arguing, and the fact that we're asked for an assumption guarantees it's not valid.

If you can find the argument in question, I can help you with it.

Meanwhile, it may help you to think of an argument as being like a chain, comprising links. In order to be valid, every. single. link. has to be present. The argument cannot make any leaps—it must provide you with a continuous, unbroken string of evidence that leads inevitably to a conclusion. A valid argument, in other words, is boring. Its conclusion is certain, given all of the evidence. Like this:

People who wear sneakers are good in bed. People who are good in bed are good with their hands. People who are good with their hands are good at basketball, and people who are good at basketball eat scones. Thus, people who wear sneakers eat scones.

This is a valid argument. There's just no daylight between the premises, and they make the conclusion certain.

Notice that it isn't sound (not all of that evidence is actually true) but we don't care about soundness on the LSAT, only validity. In other words, it doesn't matter what is true; it matters what you can prove.

Hope that helps.

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: Pt 21 section 3 #8

Postby ltowns1 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:56 pm

Dave Hall wrote:21.3.8 is not a valid argument, but I don't really think it's the argument you intended to ask about. 21.3.8 is Eva + Luis arguing, and the fact that we're asked for an assumption guarantees it's not valid.

If you can find the argument in question, I can help you with it.

Meanwhile, it may help you to think of an argument as being like a chain, comprising links. In order to be valid, every. single. link. has to be present. The argument cannot make any leaps—it must provide you with a continuous, unbroken string of evidence that leads inevitably to a conclusion. A valid argument, in other words, is boring. Its conclusion is certain, given all of the evidence. Like this:

People who wear sneakers are good in bed. People who are good in bed are good with their hands. People who are good with their hands are good at basketball, and people who are good at basketball eat scones. Thus, people who wear sneakers eat scones.

This is a valid argument. There's just no daylight between the premises, and they make the conclusion certain.

Notice that it isn't sound (not all of that evidence is actually true) but we don't care about soundness on the LSAT, only validity. In other words, it doesn't matter what is true; it matters what you can prove.

Hope that helps.



Oh shoot this is cool! I listen to you on YouTube!!! Lol ok now back to the question. This is the question I wanted to talk about, and Yeah you're right, and I never thought about it like that but an assumpution has to be flawed. I read something off a another law school forum that suggested it may have been but this was classified as a defender question and so I thought the relationship of the premise to conclusion had to be valid for a defender question to exist.

User avatar
ltowns1
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

Re: Pt 21 section 3 #8

Postby ltowns1 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:15 pm

Dave Hall wrote:21.3.8 is not a valid argument, but I don't really think it's the argument you intended to ask about. 21.3.8 is Eva + Luis arguing, and the fact that we're asked for an assumption guarantees it's not valid.

If you can find the argument in question, I can help you with it.

Meanwhile, it may help you to think of an argument as being like a chain, comprising links. In order to be valid, every. single. link. has to be present. The argument cannot make any leaps—it must provide you with a continuous, unbroken string of evidence that leads inevitably to a conclusion. A valid argument, in other words, is boring. Its conclusion is certain, given all of the evidence. Like this:

People who wear sneakers are good in bed. People who are good in bed are good with their hands. People who are good with their hands are good at basketball, and people who are good at basketball eat scones. Thus, people who wear sneakers eat scones.

This is a valid argument. There's just no daylight between the premises, and they make the conclusion certain.

Notice that it isn't sound (not all of that evidence is actually true) but we don't care about soundness on the LSAT, only validity. In other words, it doesn't matter what is true; it matters what you can prove.

Hope that helps.


Oh and thanks for the advice

User avatar
Dave Hall
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Re: Pt 21 section 3 #8

Postby Dave Hall » Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:11 pm

ltowns1 wrote:

Oh shoot this is cool! I listen to you on YouTube!!! Lol ok now back to the question. This is the question I wanted to talk about, and Yeah you're right, and I never thought about it like that but an assumpution has to be flawed. I read something off a another law school forum that suggested it may have been but this was classified as a defender question and so I thought the relationship of the premise to conclusion had to be valid for a defender question to exist.

Awesome! Have you been watching my free explanations for all the right answers to the modern tests?

I'm not familiar with the term "defender question," but I refer to this as a Necessary Assumption question—notice that it points out an error in Eva's reasoning. There's a piece missing, and we need that piece in order for her conclusion to work.

In this instance, she's concluding that the new system will save us time and money, but that's because she hasn't considered whether we're already too far gone to be saved (gulp).




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, addie1412, BOSStongrl, njames1961, theboringest, Tsubomi93, Voyager and 7 guests