"Therefore" test Forum

[younjeos]

Hello,

I am a bit confused with the “therefore” test. In most cases, I can distinguish the main conclusion from the intermediate conclusion by this test, but sometimes I am still not quite sure which one is the overall conclusion. For example, in PT 42 1 #4, I was unsure whether the first or the last sentence was the main conclusion or the intermediate conclusion. The last sentence seemed to make sense either way. Could anyone point out what I am missing?

Thank you

[mornincounselor]

Perhaps, you cited the wrong PT. My version of 42 has LG section one. Of the 2 LR sections in 42 one is a single sentence and the other involves Grey using some kind of metaphor? Does that sound right?

In that question the final sentence begins with the word "therefore". That word is a signal that what follows will be a conclusion of the argument. Here, the first two sentences are premises which link together (A+B->C) to form the conclusion in the final sentence.

That actually seems like an interesting question (and pretty difficult for so early in the test) the solution rests in identifying another way that Grey and Jordan could have discovered the metaphor without having read each other's work.

But, I'm not sure we are looking at the same question.

[younjeos]

Perhaps, you cited the wrong PT.

Yes, indeed! Sorry I cited the wrong PT
My question was regarding PT 42 4.16 that deals with the psychologist's statement.

Thank you!

[Blueprint Mithun]

Perhaps, you cited the wrong PT.

Yes, indeed! Sorry I cited the wrong PT
My question was regarding PT 42 4.16 that deals with the psychologist's statement.

Thank you!

I can see how you struggled with deciding whether the first or last sentence was the conclusion here.

Sentence 1: Gratitude can't be expressed anonymously.
Sentence 3: The social function of reinforcing good behaviors can only occur if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude.

If we interpret it as sentence 3 --> sentence 1, then the argument makes a lot of sense. Since the social function of reinforcing good behaviors can only occur if the person knows the source of gratitude, that gives us a good reason as to why gratitude can't be expressed anonymously.

If we interpret it as sentence 1 --> sentence 3, then the argument doesn't make too much sense, unless we also consider the other premise, sentence 2.

Sentence 2: Despite how society has changed, human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction.

The thing is, we don't really need sentence 1 to prove sentence 3 - sentence 2 can support it on its own. Sentence 2 relates the importance of personal interaction to social functions. So sentence 3, which claims that a social function hinges on a personal interaction, in this case the benefactor knowing the source of gratitude, follows logically from sentence 2.

Hopefully that helped you understand the argument a bit better. The other technique you can use to get the answer here is the process of elimination. We're focused on the role of sentence 1 - E is our answer because it describes it as the conclusion. However, even if you considered sentence 1 a premise, none of the other answer choices accurately describe it as one. Answer choice A comes the closest, but it calls the sentence an "illustration" of the premise, which it is not - this is no example, it's a general statement. And it doesn't "indirectly" support the conclusion, like D proposes.

[younjeos]

Perhaps, you cited the wrong PT.

Yes, indeed! Sorry I cited the wrong PT
My question was regarding PT 42 4.16 that deals with the psychologist's statement.

Thank you!

I can see how you struggled with deciding whether the first or last sentence was the conclusion here.

Sentence 1: Gratitude can't be expressed anonymously.
Sentence 3: The social function of reinforcing good behaviors can only occur if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude.

If we interpret it as sentence 3 --> sentence 1, then the argument makes a lot of sense. Since the social function of reinforcing good behaviors can only occur if the person knows the source of gratitude, that gives us a good reason as to why gratitude can't be expressed anonymously.

Hello,

I’m still a bit confused.
I’m still not understanding the difference between “because gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously, the social function of reinforcing good behaviors can only occur if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude”?

and

“because good behaviors can only be reinforced if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude, gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously”.

Does the first sentence not make sense because it's saying "because gratitude can't be fulfilled anonymously without any support or qualification? After thinking about how I approach these types of questions, I realized that I take each sentence as a fact that can stand on its own because we're not supposed to dispute the truth of the premises. For example, in my mind, I can imagine how “gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously” and “positively reinforcing these behaviors can have beneficial consequences only if the benefactors knows the source of the gratitude” can each act as independent statements that can stand alone without each other's support. Am I approaching these questions in the wrong way?
Also, would the second sentence be an example of "a premise that is compatible with either denying or accepting the conclusion"?

Thank you!

[RZ5646]

The intermediate conclusion provides support for the main conclusion, but the opposite won't be the case (except perhaps in a very indirect way). The main conclusion is the end of the road, while the intermediate conclusion is just another step towards that end.

[appind]

The intermediate conclusion provides support for the main conclusion, but the opposite won't be the case (except perhaps in a very indirect way). The main conclusion is the end of the road, while the intermediate conclusion is just another step towards that end.

can you elaborate on the bolded? it doesn't seem that the main conclusion could provide support for the intermediate.

[Blueprint Mithun]

Hello,

I’m still a bit confused.
I’m still not understanding the difference between “because gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously, the social function of reinforcing good behaviors can only occur if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude”?

and

“because good behaviors can only be reinforced if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude, gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously”.

Does the first sentence not make sense because it's saying "because gratitude can't be fulfilled anonymously without any support or qualification? After thinking about how I approach these types of questions, I realized that I take each sentence as a fact that can stand on its own because we're not supposed to dispute the truth of the premises. For example, in my mind, I can imagine how “gratitude can’t be fulfilled anonymously” and “positively reinforcing these behaviors can have beneficial consequences only if the benefactors knows the source of the gratitude” can each act as independent statements that can stand alone without each other's support. Am I approaching these questions in the wrong way?
Also, would the second sentence be an example of "a premise that is compatible with either denying or accepting the conclusion"?

Thank you!

The problem with the first sentence is that even if gratitude can't be fulfilled anonymously, that doesn't tell us why the social function can only occur if the benefactor knows the source. The benefactor will have to know the source of gratitude, because we've taken for a fact that gratitude can't be expressed anonymously. But we don't know anything about how this fact relates to reinforcing good behavior.

When you are trying to identify the conclusion, you should be imagining that the proposed conclusion is dependent on the other statements. It shouldn't make sense without the other statements. Imagining how it could be an independent fact is useful when you want to see what it does as a premise, but the nature of a conclusion is that it relies on a premise.

[RZ5646]

The intermediate conclusion provides support for the main conclusion, but the opposite won't be the case (except perhaps in a very indirect way). The main conclusion is the end of the road, while the intermediate conclusion is just another step towards that end.

can you elaborate on the bolded? it doesn't seem that the main conclusion could provide support for the intermediate.

It definitely won't provide support in the way the LSAT defines "provides support" (so OP can safely ignore this). I was thinking of weird cases like where the intermediate conclusion and the conclusion entail each other, so one implies the other. (Of course, in the world of the argument, you won't reach the conclusion by any means other than through the intermediate conclusion, so, again, that's irrelevant.)

Also, by reasoning probabilistically and considering likely external factors, you can sometimes reasonably conclude a cause from an effect. For example, if you know that if it will rain, then Smith will bring his umbrella, and you see Smith carrying his umbrella, you can reasonably (though not certainly) conclude that it will rain.

This isn't the kind of reasoning the LSAT tests, and within a properly written LSAT question you'll never reach the conclusion before you've already established the intermediate conclusion, so it's irrelevant and purely academic. I just didn't want to make that claim without qualification when it wasn't strictly true.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

Abductive reasoning (abduction) allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this inference, abduction allows the precondition a to be abduced from the consequence b. Deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference.