“A is claimed to follow from B” vs “B is offered as support for A”
These two following sentences are from an LSAT. "It" in both sentences refers to the same sentence in the stimulus. Each sentence below is presented as answer choices and thus I am trying to compare them:
- It is a conclusion that is claimed to follow from the premise that A is B.
- It is a conclusion for which the premise that A is B is offered as support.
What's the difference in terms of their implication and tone? I felt that 1. implies the conclusion follows from the premise regardless of other information in the stimulus. On the other hand, 2. implies the premises is one of the support for the conclusion, probably in concert with other information. But I am really not sure.
Any help and comments would be appreciated.
Solution 1:
That is how I interpreted it, too, before reading your own analysis.
The word "support" implies that the conclusion is likely true, especially if vindicated by additional information in tandem; whereas "claimed to follow from" is a strong phrase in argumentation, which in this case amounts to a logical consequence, that the conclusion is necessarily logical truth (or, if flawed, is imbued with "truthiness"), conditioned only on the premise that A is B holds.
They're both deductive reasoning, but 1 can be weak if touted before proven valid, and 2 can be weak if other necessary and sufficient premises can not be provided.
For instance, I would offer this question as support to conclude that having some supplemental background in formal logic can help succeeding at the LSAT, but would not say that because this question exists, knowing formal logic can help you succeed at the LSAT.