Problems on assumption questions

[Kmikaeli]

I am having quite a hard time correctly answering assumption questions. I follow the supporter assumption or defender assumption method but it does not work. For instance I try to find the variables that are uncommon between the conclusion and its premises. Then I link them which should be the assumption. I have been trying this with the assumption problems and cant get anything near right. I followed the steps to connecting and its not working. please help

[Nicholas Bruno]

Hi Kmikaeli,

I'm sorry to hear that you are having difficulty with the assumption questions! I would just caution you against thinking the strategies to link the uncommon variables "doesn't work". I know when I started doing assumptions I did not think it worked either until I realized I was misapplying the strategy! Once I realized my error, the strategy ended up working really well for me!

Let me give you a basic argument for you to analyze and maybe that will help you see how connecting the uncommon variables works. Obviously, it will be more difficult on an actual LSAT question but the principles are the same. I encourage you to ask your instructor (or start a new topic on a particular question here) if you are having trouble on a particular assumption question).

So let's imagine you had a scenario like this:

A causes B.
Therefore, A causes C.

The question asks you to find the assumption.

Well first step is to look for the uncommon variables. Obviously, we have "B" and "C". We have to "link" these for the assumption.

We narrow down to two answer choices because none of the others have "B" or "C". We have remaining

B causes C
C causes B

The way you check this is to put it into the original argument and see if it works. Clearly, B needs to cause C for A to cause C so that is the right answer.

As you can see, that is probably the most common way that students get the steps done correctly but get to the wrong answer--they "flip" the uncommon variables (i.e. go for C causing B).

Another error could be misidentifying the conclusion. Or assuming a term is "missing" when it really is not.

Anyways I hope that helps give an overview!

[Kmikaeli]

Well, for the causal statements, don't we apply the causal conclusion assumption test as seen on the cause and aeffect chapter but in the manner of strengthening as a way of defender assumptions. I thought we apply links to statements relating to conditional statements.

[Nicholas Bruno]

I was using the cause and effect to illustrate a general assumption question--nothing specific to cause and effect . And yes, you do apply links to statements relating to conditional statements.

The main thing to remember in assumption questions is that there is some "new" information in the conclusion that is not in the STATED premises. The UNSTATED premise will connect that new information in the conclusion to the STATED premise (as in my example: we needed to connect C to B). So look for the new information in the conclusion and what information you can connect it to in the stimulus.

[Kmikaeli]

One thing that is confusing is that not all arguments regarding assumption questions have casual or conditional statements. ONly in conditional statements can we directly correlate the link between rogue elements between the premise and conclusion as a direct assumption. While other arguments pertaining to assumption questions (where there is no causal or conditional or numbers and percentages), linking rogue elements together will NOT directly produce the assumption. Rather that link will better support you in making the assumption based on that bridge of information you have established.

I figured this when i realized some supporter assumptions do not directly work in the same manner as conditional reasoning supporter assumptions.

[Kmikaeli]

I am confused as to why under the sections for regulation and diversity it explains the viewpoint of the author. I though the argument portion of VIEWSTAMP mentions such parts. The Viewpoint within the VIEWSTAMP system is meant to just introduce the "who" in the passages not the "whats". The "Whats" are addressed under the argument

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi,

It's impossible to talk about viewpoints without talking about argumentation. Viewpoints generally advance a position, i.e. an argument. Focusing on Viewpoints is especially helpful when there are multiple viewpoints expressed in the passage, each of which advancing a unique argument. This isn't always the case, but it happens often enough.

The Argument component of the VIEWSTAMP method is meant to highlight the importance of argumentation in RC. While most viewpoints amount to an argument, not all arguments are emblematic of a specific viewpoint. In many passages, there is only one viewpoint - that of the author - whose arguments aren't subject to a specific "viewpoint" analysis.

Again, distinguishing viewpoints from argumentation is somewhat counterproductive, so I really wouldn't worry about it. If you understand the viewpoint (where it's introduced, whose viewpoint it is, and the gist of it), you've done your job.

Hope this helps a bit!

[Kmikaeli]

I placed it in wrong section

[Kmikaeli]

I just realized I posted this under the wrong section because i had 2 different questions. It should of been under the logical comprehension section