Additional Premise and Counter-Premise Recognition Mini-Drill #1

[Stephanie Oswalt]

We received the following question from a student. An instructor will respond below. Thanks!

Hello,

My name is Kawa and I am writing to you from Toronto, Canada. I recently picked up the Logical Reasoning Bible. Though I started studying with it recently, it’s already proving to be useful. Thank you!

I want to make sure I understand everything as well as I should. On page 36, regarding the answer key to one of the mini-drills from the preceding pages, I am having trouble with one of the sentences from the passage that you’ve designated as a counter-premise:

Counter-premise – “However, the separated juice contains impurities and many wineries do not filter the juice.”

I am clear on why the first part of this sentence (However, the separated juice contains impurities) is a counter-premise. What I don’t quite understand is why the second half of this sentence can be deemed as part of the counter-premise (...and many wineries do not filter the juice); from my reading of it, this aspect of the statement seems far more supportive of the argument the author is making. If many wineries do not filter the juice (as the experts would prefer) does it not help their position that they should be trusted and, therefore, the public should not shy away from unfiltered wine?

Forgive me if this is too nitpicky. I am determined to do really well on the LSAT and I want to thoroughly understand every detail and nuance you’ve laid out in this excellent book.

Thanks so much, in advance, for your help.

Kawa

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Kawa,

Excellent question. In tracking premises and counter-premises, we are analyzing the "train of thought" of the passage. When we encounter the second statement, the author is setting up our scenario:

• The first statement describes the wine-making the process.
• The second statement introduces a fact about the wine-making process that could raise concerns in the consumer; that is, the separated juice contains impurities and many wineries do not filter these impurities.

The author of the stimulus addresses these implicit concerns in the next statement, in which we learn that the wineries claim the unfiltered product produces a more flavorful and intense wine.

However, the second counter-premise statement is not in and of itself a premise. It presents a consideration that the author addresses in the next statement. In fact, the entire argument is structured to address these possible concerns of the consumer. Let me rephrase this stimulus to make explicit the concerns that the argument intends to address:

1. Here's how wine is made.
2. However, there are impurities, and some wineries don't filter them out.
3. Some consumers might be worried about consuming unfiltered wine with impurities.
4. However, these wineries claim the wine is better this way.
5. Since these wine makers are experts,
6. We should trust their judgment and not have a problem with unfiltered wine.

The structure of the above statements are identical to the stimulus as given in the book. However, in the bolded statements above, I have made explicit the implicit consumer concerns that the author intends to address. In addition, I added another bolded indicator word to statement (4) to show how the argument switches direction again away from the counter premises and back into the premises. These indicator words are helpful but not necessary to maintain the structure of our argument.

I hope this helps to clarify this argument for you. Good analysis. Please follow up with further questions.