Restatement of facts, strengthen /support? Forum

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Hello fellow TLS'ers, on this wonderful Thursday afternoon!

If an answer choice just restates a premise in the stimulus, does that count as supporting or strengthening, given that the question stem says "if true", therefore implying that the premise in the stimulus IS true? I would guess not according to my practice, but would just like a firm denial.

Also, what if an answer choice says that "statistics corroborate" whatever is in the premise. I can't think of an AC like this, and perhaps it would be too obvious, but could that count as the correct choice? Or would that be too much like a restatement? Meaning, does a restatement not add or strengthen?

Are we to always assume that all premises in the stimulus are true?

Thanks

[jelufowoju]

Hello fellow TLS'ers, on this wonderful Thursday afternoon!

If an answer choice just restates a premise in the stimulus, does that count as supporting or strengthening, given that the question stem says "if true", therefore implying that the premise in the stimulus IS true? I would guess not according to my practice, but would just like a firm denial.

Also, what if an answer choice says that "statistics corroborate" whatever is in the premise. I can't think of an AC like this, and perhaps it would be too obvious, but could that count as the correct choice? Or would that be too much like a restatement? Meaning, does a restatement not add or strengthen?

Are we to always assume that all premises in the stimulus are true?

Thanks

If an answer choice restates a premise it doesn't strengthen the argument because it is not adding anything new to the argument. Further, any answer choice that attempts to corroborate or confirm the veracity of any of the premises is just a premise booster and will not strengthen the argument. Remember for for assumption based questions (NA,SA, Strengthen, Weakening ect) your job is not to evaluate the truth of the premises, you are to concede that they are in fact true, rather you're to evaluate the support structure (how/why the premises do not substantiate the conclusion.

[Deardevil]

Yes, the premises are all "true."

A restatement of the what is already in the stimulus is just a "premise booster."
It does not strengthen (or weaken, for that matter).

It's like trying to argue you're hungry and saying you're famished... Okay, am I supposed to believe you really are, though?
A strengthener would be that you haven't eaten all day, which doesn't PROVE you're hungry, but it at least gives me reason to believe that you are.

Likewise, you can't weaken the fact that you're hungry by saying you're hungry, right?
You'd have to say "I just came back from the buffet" or something along those lines.

[kindofcanuck]

Are we to always assume that all premises in the stimulus are true?

Thanks

It doesn't matter if they're true. No LSAT question ever in history has hinged on whether or not the contents of the question was true. What you need to identify is whether or not it's valid.

[Blueprint Mithun]

Hello fellow TLS'ers, on this wonderful Thursday afternoon!

If an answer choice just restates a premise in the stimulus, does that count as supporting or strengthening, given that the question stem says "if true", therefore implying that the premise in the stimulus IS true? I would guess not according to my practice, but would just like a firm denial.

Also, what if an answer choice says that "statistics corroborate" whatever is in the premise. I can't think of an AC like this, and perhaps it would be too obvious, but could that count as the correct choice? Or would that be too much like a restatement? Meaning, does a restatement not add or strengthen?

Are we to always assume that all premises in the stimulus are true?

Thanks

Answers that restate a premise, like someone else mentioned, are "premise boosters." These are fairly common trap answer choices - they don't strengthen the argument because they don't add anything new or help account for any of the argument's weaknesses.

It's a little difficult to answer your second question without a specific example. If the answer is simply rewording a fact that was stated in a premise, then it is a premise booster. But if it offers some new information that strengthens a premise, then it could be a valid Strengthen answer.

It's important to make the distinction between true and valid. On the LSAT, truth doesn't matter, while validity is everything. Premises should be accepted as facts - the answer to a Flaw or Weaken question, for example, will never be "because _____ premise is not true." So don't waste your time questioning whether or not a premise is realistic. Think of it as a building block, a part of the foundation that the argument is building on.

What you should be focusing on is whether those building blocks ultimately support the argument's conclusion. Do those premises, when combined together, assure that conclusion must be true? If not, then your argument is invalid.

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Thank you Mithun.

I do quite well on LR, but have never been absolutely sure about this. Confirmation is appreciated.