#9 - Ornithologist: The curvature of the claws of modern

[Adam Tyson]

Hey Jerry, I am not going to use the conditional chain here exactly, because in my opinion it is mistake to approach this argument conditionally in the first place. This argument is not truly conditional because they author does not conclude that the bird DID live in trees, but only that it PROBABLY did. True conditional reasoning is absolute - the sufficient condition doesn't just make the necessary condition likely, but instead guarantees the necessary condition.

Keeping in mind that the author did not say that the bird was definitely tree dwelling, let's look again at the negation of your hypothetical answer F: curved claws are NOT sufficient to prove tree dwelling. They aren't enough, all by themselves, to guarantee that behavior. Does this harm the conclusion that they PROBABLY lived in trees? Nope, not at all. It still could be probable, even though it's not guaranteed. Our author never made any guarantees, so saying his conclusion is not guaranteed is irrelevant to the argument.

Now imagine how the author would respond to that negation. I imagine she might say "Oh, yeah, sure, it's possible that it didn't live in trees. I know curved claws are no guarantee for that. But it's still probably true, because the exceptions are so rare. I wasn't saying that the curved claws proved anything, just that it seemed likely."

Remember that an assumption is something that the author absolutely MUST believe is true in order to build their argument. If the assumption is false, the argument should fall apart. If it doesn't fall apart in the face of the negation - if it is unharmed or just weakened - then that assumption was not required. The author has to assume that the bird used its curved claws, because if it did not then there is no reason to believe that it lived in trees. None.

Like Brook said earlier in this thread, your hypothetical answer would justify the conclusion if it were true, but that doens't mean the author had to assume it. I might claim that I am the best LSAT tutor in Studio City, CA, and that means I have to assume that if there is another one here that I am better than they are. I don't have to assume that I am the ONLY LSAT tutor in the city, even though that would prove me correct if it was true.

I hope that helps clear it up! Avoid doing deep dives into conditional ideas when they aren't really called for, as you won't come out with any better idea of how to tackle these questions, in my opinion. But do consider the relationship between the conclusion, the answer, and in the case of assumptions, the negation of that answer in determining what answers are losers and which ones are contenders.

Keep at it!

[Jerrymakehabit]

Hey Jerry, I am not going to use the conditional chain here exactly, because in my opinion it is mistake to approach this argument conditionally in the first place. This argument is not truly conditional because they author does not conclude that the bird DID live in trees, but only that it PROBABLY did. True conditional reasoning is absolute - the sufficient condition doesn't just make the necessary condition likely, but instead guarantees the necessary condition.

Keeping in mind that the author did not say that the bird was definitely tree dwelling, let's look again at the negation of your hypothetical answer F: curved claws are NOT sufficient to prove tree dwelling. They aren't enough, all by themselves, to guarantee that behavior. Does this harm the conclusion that they PROBABLY lived in trees? Nope, not at all. It still could be probable, even though it's not guaranteed. Our author never made any guarantees, so saying his conclusion is not guaranteed is irrelevant to the argument.

Now imagine how the author would respond to that negation. I imagine she might say "Oh, yeah, sure, it's possible that it didn't live in trees. I know curved claws are no guarantee for that. But it's still probably true, because the exceptions are so rare. I wasn't saying that the curved claws proved anything, just that it seemed likely."

Remember that an assumption is something that the author absolutely MUST believe is true in order to build their argument. If the assumption is false, the argument should fall apart. If it doesn't fall apart in the face of the negation - if it is unharmed or just weakened - then that assumption was not required. The author has to assume that the bird used its curved claws, because if it did not then there is no reason to believe that it lived in trees. None.

Like Brook said earlier in this thread, your hypothetical answer would justify the conclusion if it were true, but that doens't mean the author had to assume it. I might claim that I am the best LSAT tutor in Studio City, CA, and that means I have to assume that if there is another one here that I am better than they are. I don't have to assume that I am the ONLY LSAT tutor in the city, even though that would prove me correct if it was true.

I hope that helps clear it up! Avoid doing deep dives into conditional ideas when they aren't really called for, as you won't come out with any better idea of how to tackle these questions, in my opinion. But do consider the relationship between the conclusion, the answer, and in the case of assumptions, the negation of that answer in determining what answers are losers and which ones are contenders.

Keep at it!

Adam,

It could not be more clear now after you analyzed from the "probably" perspective. I like your example of "best LSAT tutor in Studio City, CA" and I believe you are

Thanks
Jerry