Week 1: Dissecting Arguments

Question 1

Argument

Answer 1

Claim (Conclusion) supported by another claim (premise).

Question 2

Conclusion

Answer 2

Verdict / Judgement

Question 3

The most important thing for you to do when dissecting an argument is to find the ______________.

Answer 3

conclusion

Question 4

Premise

Answer 4

Evidence supporting into conclusion

Question 5

Acronym for (main) premise indicators

Answer 5

FABS

Question 6

F.A.B.S.

Answer 6

For
After all
Because
Since

Question 7

Whenever you see you any of these (FABS) words, that indicates ___________ for the conclusion.

Answer 7

support

Question 8

What’s the rule for “For” and “After all”?

Answer 8

If “for” and / or “after all” are used in a premise, supporting the conclusion, that means it comes right after the conclusion, and the conclusion comes before the premise (in which these words are used).

Question 9

When trying to find conclusion and premises, test makers are going to trash argument with _____________ (sometimes, data, stats, etc.) information, and ____________ viewpoints.

Answer 9

background; opposing

Question 10

Opposing viewpoints can come in the form of ______________ or _______________.

Answer 10

attributions; concessions

Question 11

Attributions

Answer 11

Attribution feelings, ideas, thoughts, or statements to a person/group of persons.

(leading research indicates…
scientists suggest that…)

Question 12

Concessions

Answer 12

When the author concedes to the opposing viewpoint.

Question 13

After the ___________ viewpoint, (in the form of ______________, or _____________), the author will then __________ to make his argument (oftentimes leading with the conclusion).

Answer 13

opposing; attribution; concession; PIVOT

Question 14

Pivot Indicators (3 mains, but there’s more)

(Counter-premise indicators)

Answer 14

Yet

But

However

Even though

Although

Nevertheless

Question 15

Test makers will start arguments with ____________ information, and ____________ viewpoints in the beginning to set up the refutation of that ___________ information with the author’s argument. That’s where the _________ takes place turning towards the conclusion.

Answer 15

background; opposing; opposing; pivot

Question 16

Intermediate / Subsidiary Conclusions

Answer 16

support main conclusion, while having support of it’s own.

E.g.
Conclusion: “We should eat vegetarian.”

Why?
↓
Killing animals is inhumane.
+
Eating meat from animals is worsening climate change.
…(why? no support provided)

These are two separate premises that don’t have support of their own while supporting main conclusion, so their just regular ol’ premises.

Conclusion: “We should eat vegetarian.”

Why?
↓
Preparing animals for meat consumption is worsening climate change.
…why?
↓
because cows fart out methane, a potent green house gas (support provided!)

Here, the int. conclusion has support of it’s own while still having support of its own.

Question 17

In the previous example, the conclusion used the word “should.” This is opinion language, and an opinion is oftentimes an ___________ of the author’s ______________.

Answer 17

indicator; conclusion

Question 18

Opinion Indicators

Answer 18

should
ought
clearly
evidently
obviously
apparently
probably

Question 19

Conclusion indicators (not exhaustive)

Answer 19

Thus
so
hence
therefore

Question 20

Arguments that open by relying on data usually end with a _____________ conclusion, namely an anti-causal conclusion (one thing being unsuccessful in changing/bringing about change in another thing), where the data / stats introduced in the beginning is __________ in the conclusion.

(E.g. Signing up for this LSAT course was a waste of time and money. My highest score is a 150. Therefore, this course didn’t help).

When arguments present an anti-causal conclusion, it’s your job to become a _____________, and begin finding holes in the arguments reasoning.

E.g. maybe my score wouldn’t have gone up to a 150 if I hadn’t taken the course. Maybe my score would’ve been a 135 or 140 had I not taken the course.

Answer 20

causal; refuted

SKEPTIC

Question 21

In being a SKEPTIC you have to ask yourself, “how can I accept this evidence (data/stats/background info), but argue that this (anti-causal) conclusion is wrong ?”

If the conclusion says, “Thus we should do X,”

• you should be a skeptic and argue, “X won’t help / presents a net negative.”

If the conclusion says, “If you want Y, we should do X.”

• you should be a skeptic and argue “doing X doesn’t help to get Y.”

If the conclusion says, “If you want Y, you MUST do X.”

• you should be a skeptic and argue “there are other ways to get X.”