SOUND Arguments vs UNSound arguments (LR)

[walkerdoreen07]

Hello,

I know this is not right posting area but for some reason I couldn't get into Logical Reasoning post area. Sorry.:/)

Re: Sound Vs Unsound LR Arguments

Hello,
Can you further explain sound vs unsound arguments?

I'm referring to Altas blog(LSAT Weaken question):

Sep 09 S4 #2 is a sound argument because no flaws or assumption;

Sep 09 S4 #10 is NOT sound because it makes a big assumption.

Will you eventually figure out the difference between SOUND vs UNSOUND argument? Should you be asking yourself before every argument?

Doreen
P.S. Silly question?

[aileenann]

Hi Doreen,

That's not a problem! You can always get in touch with tech (tech@atlaslsat.com) if the forums are giving you technical problems.

I am assuming that you are not so much asking about those two particular questions (if you are, please let me know, and I'll be happy to explain them!) as about a general concern about spotting sound v. unsound arguments, particularly with respect to weaken questions. I have a few thoughts on this that might be helpful.

First, in a weaken question, you need to *weaken* the question regardless of whether it is ultimately a sound or unsound argument. So to some extent, this distinction between sound and unsound is more something to help you spot assumptions you can use to your advantage (specifically by negating said assumptions if you want to weaken the argument) but not something you absolutely must do to get the answer right.

Second, repetition can seriously help - both doing many LR questions, but also doing many of the same ones again and again. Force yourself to articulate broad patterns in the kinds of assumptions that a particular argument makes and the kinds of answers that effectively weaken those particular kinds of assumptions. In this way, you absolutely will improve your sense over time of how sound or unsound a particular argument is.

Does this answer your question? Please let me know what more I need to cover!

[walkerdoreen07]

Yes I will go back and redo questions. Thank you.

[aileenann]

That sounds like a good idea. I hope you'll share your thoughts and insights here once you've redone the problem

[steve.westberg]

Hello,

I know this is not right posting area but for some reason I couldn't get into Logical Reasoning post area. Sorry.:/)

Re: Sound Vs Unsound LR Arguments

Hello,
Can you further explain sound vs unsound arguments?

I'm referring to Altas blog(LSAT Weaken question):

Sep 09 S4 #2 is a sound argument because no flaws or assumption;

Sep 09 S4 #10 is NOT sound because it makes a big assumption.

Will you eventually figure out the difference between SOUND vs UNSOUND argument? Should you be asking yourself before every argument?

Doreen
P.S. Silly question?

First of all, remove this phobia that question may be silly. Any prudent test taker should and will ask creative questions. In my opinion, Something that immediately strikes in mind and convince the jurisprudence without any special force should be considered as a sound argument. On the other hand, a devoid, hallow and an argument in which lot of stress is given to convince, could be classify under unsound argument. Now the key is NOT to confuse complex argument with unsound argument because under complex argument, many characterizations, many examples makes it pretty much identical to unsound argument.

[richtailkim]

A sound argument is an argument that:

(1) Is valid, in that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
(2) The premises are true, or at least reasonable to believe.

So the difference between a sound and valid argument is that an argument that is valid may have false or absurd premises, but still have validity in its structure.

But a sound argument must not only have a valid structure (in that truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion) but also true (or reasonable) premises.

In this way, premises or conclusions are not, strictly speaking, sound or unsound, valid or invalid. They are either true or false, reasonable or unreasonable.