Premise and Conclusion Analysis Drill #1

[changh90503]

Hi, I thought the argument was weak because the argument did not establish why receiving a new grade would contribute to the mission of education. Can someone offer a critique on why I was wrong to believe that the argument was weak? Thanks.

[David Boyle]

Hi, I thought the argument was weak because the argument did not establish why receiving a new grade would contribute to the mission of education. Can someone offer a critique on why I was wrong to believe that the argument was weak? Thanks.

Hello changh90503,

Is this the passage starting, "Some teachers claim that students would not learn curricular content without the incentive of grades"? If not, please tell me the year and month of LSAT that the passage you reference is from, and any other information, e.g., what section? Thanks,

David

[changh90503]

This isn't from an LSAT test,

this is from the LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible 2013 Edition Page 33 Q1
Chapter Two: The basics of Logical Reasoning
January 2013

Premise and Conclusion Analysis Drill

For each stimulus, identify the conclusion(s) and supporting premise(s), if any. The answer key will identify the conclusion and premises of each argument, the logical validity of each argument, and also comment on how to identify argument structure. Answers on Page 39

1) Admittedly, the practice of allowing students to retake a class they previously failed and receive a new grade is controversial. But the mission of any school or university is to educate their students, and allowing students to retake courses supports this mission. Therefore, for the time being, our school should continue to allow students to retake previously failed courses and receive a new grade.

A) What is the conclusion of the argument, if any?
B) What premises are given in support of this conclusion?
C) Is the argument strong or weak? IF you think the argument is weak, please explain why.

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That's an interesting question. The author explicitly states that allowing students to retake courses supports the mission of any school or university to educate students. This is not a conclusion that the author is attempting to prove, but rather a statement that we must take at face value, whose truth need not be further established; it is a premise offered in support of the author's conclusion: that the school should continue the class-retaking policy.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[MeliXi]

Hi all,

I have a question about the Premise & Conclusion Analysis drill that comes at the end of Chapter 2 of the LR Bible (2020 version).

Drill 1 (about students retaking classes): Why isn't the first sentence starting with "Admittedly" not a counter premise? It's my understanding that counter premises generally would weaken the main conclusion and it's usually an idea that the author goes on to dismiss. Isn't that what's going on here?

(Didn't type out the entire question b/c wasn't sure if there was a rule that I couldn't post the entire question.)

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

I may be looking at a different version of the Bible than you are, MeliXi, but in my copy the explanation DOES call that first line a counter-premise. Look past the initial breakdown of the argument structure and you'll see the more detailed explanation.

Counter-premises are claims used to undermine or weaken some other claim. They can be made by the author to argue against someone else, or they can be used by the author as a sort of concession that "yes, there is a potential weakness with my argument, but...", sort of like anticipating an objection and then dealing with it.

Good job! If your version doesn't include that explanatory info in the answer key, rest assured that later versions do!