Top Law Schools

What does "however" indicate in relation to arguments? I've forgotten, and the use of it in this question really throws me off. For some reason I saw "however" and I immediately thought conclusion. Maybe I somehow confused it with the word therefore. I don't know at this point.

--LinkRemoved--

I'm going to mall (premise), however, I'm not buying anything (conclusion) Is this right?

Oh my, this question is really testing me.

So I picked (B) for this question and based on what you've read so far I can imagine you know why.

After realizing it was wrong I rethought about the question and then decided that the correct answer choice was (D) but not really understanding why it couldn't have been (C).

After rethinking about it I decided the first sentence was the conclusion and the however statement was an opposing viewpoint or "possible objection" as in (D).

Now that I've completely fleshed this out I just realized what the actual conclusion is.... correct me if I'm wrong.

Since even mainstream economic theorists watch television, their motive in advancing this theory must be something other than disinterested concern for scientific truth. The last sentence is the conclusion.... jesus... how in the world did I miss that...

So (A) - the however statement supports the last sentence...

go to hell LSAT- I figured you out

I think you're getting too wrapped up in using keywords as 'rules', and it's getting in the way of you reading the argument for it's actual meaning. "However" just indicates contrast - that's all. That contrast may mean a host of different things, depending on the context it arrives in.

The "however" here contrasts what mainstream economic theory holds with what everyone who watches television knows.

The simplified core of this argument is essentially:

• PREMISES
  Mainstream economic theory holds X
  Everyone who watches TV knows that's not true.
  Mainstream economic theorists watch TV.
  CONCLUSION
  Their motive for the theory is bad.

It sounds like when you let yourself stop overanalyzing the signal words, you were able to see the conclusion from the content. You have to be able to ask yourself what final logical step is being supported by the rest of the stimulus. Isolate two concepts, and insert a big THEREFORE between them to see if it makes sense.

Does it make sense to say:
Mainstream economic theory holds X THEREFORE everyone who watches television knows that X isn't true? Not at all! The author isn't trying to support that second statement with the first - they are contrasting pieces of data.

It also sounds like you may have been trying to simply decide what that statement was in a vacuum. That's not usually very efficient. I find it is far easier to figure out the simplified core of the argument, then decide how the statement in question relates to that core. You don't really know what job a statement is playing unless you've sorted the rest of the argument out. Start with finding the conclusion - what's the author's final logical step? Then ask - why does the author think that? Then if there's anything left over that's not direct support for the conclusion, figure out how it relates (that's where you'll get possible objections "while it is true that blah blah blah", positions argued against "some philosophers have long held that blah blah blah, [but they are wrong, because stuff]", etc).

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:I think you're getting too wrapped up in using keywords as 'rules', and it's getting in the way of you reading the argument for it's actual meaning.

I agree.

Thank you for the explanation!