Finding the weakness in the argument Forum

[ltowns1]

I have a tendency to look at the premise that's closest to conclusion to try and figure out the gap. Most of the time, the gap is between the most immediate premise and the conclusion, but sometimes it's not. At times it can be from the premise above or below the one closest to the conclusion. Is there a way I can break out of this habit?? Does it come down to just being able to examine where the weakness in the argument is??

Note: if you don't get what I'm saying go to the free lsac practice test(2007), and go to LR section 3 #11 about the mercury in the feathers of birds. I was trying to figure out the gap between the premise about the mercury being derived from fish (the most immediate premise to the conclusion) when the gap was in the first premise (referring to the preservation process)

[03152016]

you should head back to whatever guide you're working with and have another look at necessary assumptions

in short, necessary assumptions are unstated premises that are necessary for the argument to follow
some of them will bridge gaps, as you mentioned
some of them don't, they simply defend that argument from a potential weakener

that's the case in the question you cited

i like the way powerscore teaches this
if you have it, read it, try to wrap your head around the supporter/defender model

[ltowns1]

you should head back to whatever guide you're working with and have another look at necessary assumptions

in short, necessary assumptions are unstated premises that are necessary for the argument to follow
some of them will bridge gaps, as you mentioned
some of them don't, they simply defend that argument from a potential weakener

that's the case in the question you cited

i like the way powerscore teaches this
if you have it, read it, try to wrap your head around the supporter/defender model

I tend to do it on all assumption family questions, not just necessary assumptions, so hopefully this will help.
I have Mahattan and the LR Bible.

Thanks,

[dontdoitkid]

you should head back to whatever guide you're working with and have another look at necessary assumptions

in short, necessary assumptions are unstated premises that are necessary for the argument to follow
some of them will bridge gaps, as you mentioned
some of them don't, they simply defend that argument from a potential weakener

that's the case in the question you cited

i like the way powerscore teaches this
if you have it, read it, try to wrap your head around the supporter/defender model

Learning the supporter/defender classifications was one of the best things I took away from the Powerscore LR Bible, I'd definitely recommend giving it a look.

[BillPackets]

idk i think being able to distinguish between premise/useless background info would be helpful in this situation. there are also intermediate conclusions that are supported with premise, and typically those are separated from the overall conclusion by at least 1 line. i've never considered this spatial problem before. kind of interesting

[ltowns1]

idk i think being able to distinguish between premise/useless background info would be helpful in this situation. there are also intermediate conclusions that are supported with premise, and typically those are separated from the overall conclusion by at least 1 line. i've never considered this spatial problem before. kind of interesting

Yeah I think Mahattan's "argument core" approach really helped with that, but I went away from it to some degree.

[ltowns1]

you should head back to whatever guide you're working with and have another look at necessary assumptions

in short, necessary assumptions are unstated premises that are necessary for the argument to follow
some of them will bridge gaps, as you mentioned
some of them don't, they simply defend that argument from a potential weakener

that's the case in the question you cited

i like the way powerscore teaches this
if you have it, read it, try to wrap your head around the supporter/defender model

Is the defender classification only for necessary assumption questions?

[dontdoitkid]

you should head back to whatever guide you're working with and have another look at necessary assumptions

in short, necessary assumptions are unstated premises that are necessary for the argument to follow
some of them will bridge gaps, as you mentioned
some of them don't, they simply defend that argument from a potential weakener

that's the case in the question you cited

i like the way powerscore teaches this
if you have it, read it, try to wrap your head around the supporter/defender model

Is the defender classification only for necessary assumption questions?

It also applies to Strengthen (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, a "supporter" increases the level of support by making it more obvious, while a defender "defends" the premise against something that will have otherwise weakened it by saying it is not true (or something along those lines).

[ltowns1]

you should head back to whatever guide you're working with and have another look at necessary assumptions

in short, necessary assumptions are unstated premises that are necessary for the argument to follow
some of them will bridge gaps, as you mentioned
some of them don't, they simply defend that argument from a potential weakener

that's the case in the question you cited

i like the way powerscore teaches this
if you have it, read it, try to wrap your head around the supporter/defender model

Is the defender classification only for necessary assumption questions?

It also applies to Strengthen (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, a "supporter" increases the level of support by making it more obvious, while a defender "defends" the premise against something that will have otherwise weakened it by saying it is not true (or something along those lines).

So I'm assumpming that it doesn't apply to weaken, because sometimes in weaken questions ( ( in the later questions) the weakness comes from the 1st premise which was not closet to the conclusion as well. Is that just a scenario where you have to examine the weakness as well? Because like I said earlier, I do it on almost all assumption family questions. So while the defender method may help on strengthener questions, what should I do on the other types of assumption family questions?