LSAT Vocab

conditional mantras

"You can't drive UNLESS you are at least sixteen" or "UNLESS you are sixteen, you can't drive" These statements do not mean everyone over sixteen can drive. Drive -> =/> 16 "He will eat fish ONLY IF it is dead" or "ONLY IF a fish is dead will he eat it." Eat -> Dead. these statements do not mean taht he'll eat any fish as long as it's dead.

3 common argument flaws

- a piece does not equal the puzzle -apples are not oranges -1 + 1 does not equal 3

3 broad sub-sets of piece-puzzle flaws

- overvalues a trait - overvalues an opinion - overvalues a sample size

reasoning issues

1 + 1 does not equal 3 arguments are flawed because the author jumps to a conclusion, or equates things that shouldn't necessarily be equated... a key way to recognize the flaw is to think about changes in subject matter, characteristic, or relationship

general reasons why got logical reasoning questions wrong

1- read it wrong 2- thought it wrong 3- solved it wrong

basic logic games strategy

1- see the big picture read the scenario and rules and take it all in. 2- understand rules and notate them 3- see how rules come together, and how they don't 4- approach each question with a smart plan of attack (use effective question strategies

3 common categories of apples aren't oranges

1- the author falsely equates subject matter 2- the author falsely equates characteristics 3- the author falsely equates relationships

3 key challenges particular to strengthen and weaken

1- they can have hard-to-pinpoint problems in the argument 2- attractive wrong choices strengthen or weaken the point but not the reasoning 3- attractive wrong choices also often play the opposite role relative to what we need.

critical habits for answering logical reasoning questions

1- use the question stem to understand your task (tells us whether to read the stimulus objectively (where we do not judge or evaluate argument) or subjectively(where we must evaluate arguments)) 2- identify the conclusion (look for the point being made) when identifying the conclusion, 2 important criteria: the conclusion is going to be an opinion of some sort (debatable and needs to be justified); the conclusion will have support. 3- find the support. think about how the support, as a whole, is meant to justify the point. How the support comes together to form "one" reason for the point. 4- figure out what's wrong with how the support justifies the conclusion. 5- eliminate wrong answers. 6- confirm the right answer.

four major characteristics of conditional reasoning.

1. Conditional rules are rules that only apply sometimes. They are set off by a trigger the sufficient condition. It's called this bc it is sufficient, or enough, to guarantee the outcome. 2. Conditional statements represent guarantees "If" is a powerful and absolute word, it represents a guarantee. If the sufficient condition is met, the outcome must result. One way to describe all flawed arguments is to say that they are arguments in which the author thinks the support is sufficient (or enough) when in fact it's not. 3. Conditional statements provide inferences. contrapositive. for challenging questions, test writers will give us our gap fillers in terms of their contrapositives. 4. Conditional statements link up when you see multiple conditional statements in one stimulus, you know that a part of your job will be to see how these statements link up and how they don't

contrapositive of biconditionals

A <=> B -A <=> -B

" A only if B" vs. "A if B"

A => B vs. B => A

Conform to a principle

A question type that is less common but closely related is the conform to a principle question. The main difference with these questions is that the gaps will be written less as flaws and more as opinions. The job is still the same-- find the hole and plug it in.

uses a small sample set

Arguments are flawed when they reach a general consensus based on evidence from a limited portion of whatever group or system that they are discussing.

QSCS: Each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT

Figure out what is wrong with the argument, then eliminate answers that help fix that issue. the right answer may or may not weaken the argument (might have no direct impact on the argument) the four wrong answers will strengthen the relationship between support and conclusion; eliminate these

QSCS: which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Figure out what is wrong with the argument, then select the answer that exposes that flaw. Tempting wrong answers will relate to the conclusion or the support, but not the prob that exists between them. Remember to treat each answer choice as being true!

fails to address adequately the possibilty that even if a condition is sufficent to produce an effect, it may not be necessary

I got fit by working out every day. If you want to get fit, you must work out every day

takes for granted that, if a condition coincided with the emergence of a certain phenomenon, it must have been causally responsible for that phenomenon

I got sick right after I ate that taco. The taco must have made me sick.

strategy

ID the main point ID the support understand the reasoning structure (how the author justifies the conclusion with the support) make sure your understanding of the flaw is conceptual and flexible

words that indicate sufficiency

IF any each whenever none every/everyone no when all the only

interprets an assertion that certain conditions are necessary as asserting that those conditions are sufficient

In order to become a pop star, one needs to be able to dance well. Since I can dance well, I will become a pop star.

words that indicate a necessary result

Need, then, unless, require, only if, except, only

presents as a premise a claim that one would accept as true only if one already accepts the truth of the conclusion

Of course what the mayor is saying is true. He would not be saying it otherwise

mistakes a merely relative property for one that is absolute

Since Jessica has more money than Tara, Jessica must be rich.

bases a generalization on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative

Since the managers at the company state that their employees are thoroughly grateful to be working under them, this must indeed be the case.

conform to a principle question stems

The reasoning above most closely conforms to which of the following principles? Which one of the following propositions is most precisely exemplified by the situation presented above?

supporting principle question stems

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the economist's reasoning?

intermediate conclusion

a conclusion that is meant to serve as a premise for a later conclusion

intermediate conclusions

a conclusion that is used to support another conclusion. Any non-factual support that itself has support is an intermediate conclusion. you typically only think about intermediate conclusions in a couple of situations When there is no or almost no gap between the main point and the primary support, coupled with a fairly significant gap between that primary support and the information given that is meant to support it. very basic examples of intermediate conclusions: Ken studies hard so he probably does well in school so he probably gets good grades. Josh likes candy so he must be overweight so he must be out of shape.

premise

a fact, proposition, or statement from which a conclusion is made.

ability to recognize reasoning structure

ability to see how various parts of the stimulus are meant to relate to one another.

subsets

add an additional layer of complexity to common ordering and grouping games. Can apply to elements, positions, or both. Use lowercase letters (or numbers) for subset issues

how to confirm a required assumption question?

always negate. required and important are different criteria. A necessary assumption may be important, or it may not be. the negation test can help weed out the truly necessary assumptions from the other answers. Examples on page 269.

apples don't equal oranges

an argument that falsely transfers, or exchanges; where the author treats two things as if they are the same, or same enough, when they clearly are not. transferring information or ideas from one situation to the other in a faulty way

answer choice strategies: flaw strategies

answers for flaw questions are directly related to your understanding of the argument. You need to make sure you understand what is wrong with the argument before moving on to the answers. The vast majority of wrong answers will be unrelated to the reasoning in the argument. The right answer will generally hit the issue directly. When right answers are difficult to spot, it is commonly bc of abstract wording. Make a bait to not eliminate answer choices until you understand them enough to know for certain something is wrong with them.

the puzzle is not a piece

arguments that are flawed because they mistakenly assume that something that is true of the whole is true of each component.

what do basic assumption, sufficient assumption, and required assumption questions require us to do? (plus tasks)

basic: ask us to state the problem in an argument in terms of an assumption the author has made. task-- look for an answer that expresses the flaw in reasoning as an assumption sufficient: ask us to identify an answer that would completely fix the reasoning issue in the argument. task-- look for an answer that makes the argument airtight. Required: ask us to identify an assumption that needs to be true for the conclusion to be true. task-- look for an answer that needs to be true if the argument is to work.

Supporting Principle Questions

close siblings of sufficient assumption. They also serve to bridge the gap between the reasoning given and the conclusion reached. differences. the flaws in the arguments for supporting principle questions tend to be less absolute and abstract than SA, and so right answers may not always have the same sense of closure. also, expect that the right answer will generalize beyond what we need to fill the gap-- after all, a principle is just a rule that is generalized. But to get the right answer you also find the problem and look for the one answer that would plug it up.

logic games-- conditional rules

conditional rules are rules that only apply sometimes They come into effect when a trigger, the if statement, sets them off.

biconditionals

conditional statements that work in both directions. The basic construction of a biconditional statement is designed around the phrase "if and only if" (this is a combo of two conditional statements: "if" and "only if" these are hidden "or" statements... A will be on the team if and only if B is => A B

question stem cheat sheet (QSCS): of the following, which one most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?

decide on the conclusion within the argument, the right answer should be predictable and require little inference work. Do not need to figure out what's wrong with the argument

infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficent for a result that the absence of that factor is sufficient for the opposite result

example: Since eating sushi makes one healthy, not eating sushi makes one unhealthy

characteristic issue

falsely equating characteristic e.g. saying something is more expensive in premise and concluding that there's more demand for it in conclusion

trick to tell what part of the argument is the conclusion and what's the support

play out how one part could be used to support the other. Stick the word "therefore" in between the two statements. If you try out "A therefore B" and "B therefore A," it can help make it much easier to see which part is meant to be the support, and which part the conclusion.

overvalues a trait

put too much emphasis on one particular characteristic or one "clue" in reaching a conclusion. This is not enough to GUARANTEE the outcome the author presents. NEED ABSOLUTE PROOF. Does that characteristic guarantee the outcome? (it's not enough to prove the author's point. important factor is not a determining factor.

Basic assumption questions

questions that ask what the author is assuming. they are flaw questions in disguise. Any time an author has made a mistake in thinking that their evidence is enough to reach their conclusion, they've assumed that this evidence is enough to reach their conclusions.

practice to understand your task

read through the question stems in any logical reasoning section. For each stem, see if it requires you to be critical and then determine what type of question it is. Afterwards, walk through the section slowly to see if you got all the question stems correct. Keep a list of stems that trip you up. Repeat until you can recognize every critical question stem without any effort.

faulty extrapolation

reasoning issues that arise when the person making the argument places too much significance on one characteristic, one opinion, or an unrepresentative sample set.

rules of order

relate elements to one another in the context of an ordering game. can be specific or general

practice recognizing flaws

review already solved questions. For each Q, just read the stimulus not the answer choices, and mark down what you think is wrong with the argument. After a set of questions, review carefully how this correct answer relates to this flaw you saw. You should see a connection every single time. If you have a lot of trouble, consider whether your reading skills might be holding you back. Also feel free to repeat the same questions over again, this is very good for setting habits, for you will likely see the very same reasoning issues in the arguments on your real exam.

practice reading for structure

review questions already solved. For each question, just focus on the stimulus, and work on zeroing in on the conclusion and the support. Mark what you think the conclusion and support are. After a set of questions review carefully how the conclusion and support that you marked relate to the correct answer to the question. You should see a connection every single time. Repeat until the process feels automatic, and separate out the process of identifying the conclusion or the supporting premises if you think just that part of your skill set needs more work.

compound conditionals contrapositive for compound conditionals

rules that discuss more than one element or characteristic in either the trigger or result. "and" switches to "or"

conditional rules

rules that only apply in particular situations. every conditional rule has a contrapositive

context issues

sometimes, the subjects and characteristics mentioned in the premises will be an almost exact match for those that are in the conclusion, but the argument will still be flawed. when the author fails to take account of context-- the situation might be different but the author assumes it has stayed consistent.

QSCS: which one of the following is an assumption on which the person's argument depends?

start by figuring out what's wrong with the argument Keyword = depends. That does not mean the right answer needs to be important in addressing the argument flaw, but that the answer is something that needs to be true in order for the argument to work.

falsely equates subject matter

subjects in the conclusion and support may seem the same or almost the same, tip: it's best to focus on the differences in subject matter between the support and the conclusion

how to confirm answer for strengthen/weaken questions

take your answer and try to fit it in between the support and the conclusion. You should see that it strengthens this bond or weakens it. If you can't see it doing either, it's not the right answer.

falsely equates characteristics

the LSAT will play with this through the use of assumed, but not actual, opposites. The author mistakenly equates not being something with being some sort of opposite of that thing.

answer choice strategies: sufficient assumption strategies

the answers need to completely fix the problem with an argument. Need to have clear sense of flaw to figure out what to fix. These arguments are designed to have clear and specific problems. Expect to be able to spot these probs almost every time Tempting wrong answers might provide a required assumption, , or one that is very helpful to the argument but doesn't fix it. Right answers need to pass the sufficiency threshold, if an answer choice leaves what you feel are definite gaps, that answer choice will not be correct. Also, the right answers can go above and beyond what we need.

1 + 1 does not equal 3

the argument is flawed because the author brings together two ideas, or two pieces of information, to conclude something that those components don't warrant.

falsely equates relationships

the author falsely assumes that the relationship between elements mentioned in the premise equates to that mentioned in the conclusion.

LG: numbers issues appear when...

the elements and positions are not one-to-one or when there are subsets.

subject matter issue

the premises don't tell you about it so you're jumping to a conclusion.

conditional heavy stimuli

the statements in these types of stimuli can link together. This is only likely to happen in sufficient assumption, inference, match the flaw and match the reasoning... and only once or twice per exam. If you see a conditional heavy stimulus for a sufficient assumption Q you can expect the supporting premises to link together in some way to form the conclusion (almost like together, missing one link, the correct answer will fill that link in)

the word "or" in the LSAT

the word "or" does not exclude the possibility of both. If both are not a possibility then it will explicitly state that or the situation will naturally exclude that possibility.

conditional logic language

the word all can give a sense of sufficiency. it tells us that if you have a certain characteristic there is a certain guaranteed result. "If" is the most common word that starts a sufficient condition, but keep in mind that words like "all" any" and "every, and their negative counterparts "no" and "none" are similar indicators of sufficiency some words tell us that there is some sort of guarantee. The word must serve this function (absolute and gives us the guarantee). The most basic guarantee word is "is" certain words indicate that we have the "result" part of a conditional statement, more formally known as the "necessary consequent."

QSCS: Each of the following describes a flaw in the person's reasoning except

there are going to be a lot of issues between the support and conclusion. Get as clear a sense as you can of the probs in that relationship before moving on to the answer choices. eliminate the four answers you think best describe the probs, and then select the answer that remains.

answer choice strategies: match the flaw strategies

these arguments tend to have fairly clearly definable flaws, usually of the 1 plus 1 does not equal three variety. The stimuli for these Qs tend to have less secondary info. Reasoning structure will allow you to eliminate most wrong answers-- they reach different types of conclusions or use a different type of reasoning than what we saw in the original. Make sure to check all of the small words and modifiers to make sure the answer doesn't have a different type of flaw.

on the LSAT, you don't question whether the reason given is true...

it's about the support-conclusion relationship. If a premise is said to be true accept it as true, but does the way it connects with the conclusion justify it completely?

Sufficient assumption "the conclusion follows logically if which of the following is assumed?" "Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion to be properly drawn?"

fill the hole. Key = have a very clear sense of the flaw. stay on task. The right answer must leave the reasoning in the argument air-tight. 1- understand your job the question stems for sufficient assumption questions are defined by three main characteristics: they have the word "assumption," they almost always phrase that assumption in terms of a condition "if assumed," and they include some sense that the argument would, with the assumption, be made logical or valid. Once you recognize that it's a sufficient assumption question, expect 2 things from the argument: it's more likely to have formal reasoning issues (most commonly conditional reasoning", and the argument is going to have one, clearly definable gap in reasoning 2- find the point Try to get a sense of the overall flow of the reasoning. Pay attention to whether have more typical support-to-conclusion relationship, or a series of supporting premises that are meant to link together. If it's the latter, the flaw in reasoning has to do with some sort of missing link in the chain. 3- find the support this will either be more traditional variety (one supporting piece of evidence), or will come as a series of linking conditions. 4- figure out what's wrong Remember: the arguments for Sufficient Assumption questions will have one clearly definable hole or flaw. try to keep separate your understanding of what's wrong with the argument, and how you might go about filling it. 5- get rid of answers Many sufficient assumption questions will have four wrong choices that have nothing to do with the argument. if are diligent about finding the flaw and focusing on why answers are wrong, can get through some of these questions quickly. Don't try to ID the right answer, carefully evaluate attractive wrong answers. Get rid of answers that are obviously wrong first, then think carefully about the answer choices you are forced to think carefully about. the hardest sufficient assumption questions can have several wrong answer choices that at first glance can seem like they fill the gap. These attractive wrong choices match the argument in terms of subject matter, but don't give us the connection that we need in order to validate the conclusion. 6- confirm the right answer If you place the answer in between the support and the conclusion, it makes the conclusion one hundred percent justifiable.

Match the Flaw Questions

find out what's wrong with the original and then eliminate mismatches. 1- understand your job. during the initial read need to find an argument in the stimulus ad figure out what is wrong with that argument. Have a very clear understanding of the flaw before moving on to the answer choices. 2- find the point prioritize identifying the main point of the argument 3- find the support 4- figure out what's wrong Matching questions in general tend to have 1 + 1 =/ 3 types of laws. it's not enough to think they're putting two premises together incorrectly because it's likely that several answers will do that. you want to develop as specific an understanding as possible of exactly what is wrong with the reasoning in that particular argument 5- get rid of answers. focus on one part of the picture at a time. you don't have to think about arguments in their entirety to know that they are not good matches. Many answers will be wrong because they clearly reach very different conclusions. Many will be wrong because they use different support (there are qualifiers like"some" when there weren't in the original argument or the original had an either/or and the answer choice does not_. You want to find the quickest and most absolute reason to say that an answer is wrong. and you will know that in general, four of the five answers will have very obvious tells that show you they're different form the original. Don't use physical location, you should only care about the reasoning structure. 6- confirm the right answer. Make sure the conclusion is the same type of conclusion. Make sure you have the same type of support. Make sure there are no stray words that change the meaning of that answer in some way. And of course, make sure they have the same flaw.

required assumption need not...

fix the argument or even get close to fixing it-- it's simply something that needs to be true if the argument is going to work. required vs. important examples on page 271.

sufficient assumption and supporting principle

for these two question types we want to figure out what is wrong and then search for an answer to completely fix the issue. most sufficient assumption questions involve conditional logic, and sufficient assumption questions commonly present the most challenging conditional logic issues. think about the point, the support, and the hole between the two. Try to come up with answers that will completely fill the hole-- answers that leave no gap between the support and the point.

logic games: rules of assignment

have to do with how particular positions will be filled

QSCS: The part about X figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?

here need to decide on the role played by the part in question, then find the answer that best represents that understanding. A component's role is defined by how it relates to the main point. the right answer should be predictable, and require little inference work Does not require us to be critical of the argument's reasoning in any way

complex or rules

involve three or more elements these rules will severely limit where those elements can go.

words that indicate guarantees

is always cannot must are will be was invariably never were

LG-- the contrapositive

is an inference that can be derived from any and all conditional statements, and in fact, should be thought of as a basic part of understanding any conditional statement. Happens when the elements were both reversed and negated.

correlation and causation

is that enough information to be certain? evidence of correlation (or lack thereof), can strengthen or weaken a claim of causation, but it can never, ever prove a claim of causation. Only causation proves causation.

strengthen and weaken

job = identify the flaw in the argument, and then address that flaw in some way. These questions will have vague or more difficult-to-define flaws, and will often have a lot of secondary "fluff" around the critical components of the argument. Right answers need not make the argument perfect, and generally won't most tempting wrong answers are ones that strengthen or weaken the author's point, but not in a way that impacts how the point was originally made. 1- understand your job strengthen and weaken questions have somewhat deceptive question stems. Ask for the one that most weakens or strengthens, but only one answer will actually do this. 2- Find the point need to understand the flaw in the argument and then ID one answer choice that matches the task 3- find the support these questions will always have the statement "if true" contained in the question stem. This tells us not to waste our energy thinking about the validity of the answer hcoies. 4- figure out what's wrong isolate the support and conclusion. 5- get rid of answers there will be answers you can eliminate bc they have no direct bearing on the relationship between the support and the conclusion. answers that have a more direct bearing on the elements within the argument will be more attractive. Be aware of answer choices that strengthen or weaken the conclusion, but not in a way that seems to relate to the reasoning you originally considered. Strengthening or weakening the author's point is not the job. The job is to strengthen or weaken the bond between the support and the conclusion. don't eliminate an answer bc it only seems to strengthen or weaken a little, that's fine. Only eliminate answers that don't perform the job at all. 6- confirm the right answer. you can confirm that you've selected the correct answer. First, take your answer and try to fit it in between the support and the conclusion. You should see that it strengthens this bond or weakens it. If you can't see it doing either, it's not the right answer.

hidden conditionals

less obviously a conditional rule, generally appear in games that have subsets or mismatch issues (usually involve elements or characteristics that appear more or less than once).

required assumption, strengthen, and weaken

likely that the stimulus will hold a lot of extraneous information..... only a phrase or two will be used to support this point. The answer that does directly address the argument, and actually weakens it. you need the discipline to not lose sight of the specific reasoning issue and your specific task. if you can hold a specific understanding of the support-conclusion relationship in your head, and if you can remember that your job is to strengthen the bond between this support and the point, it should be that only one answer choice remains after eliminating wrong choices. If you can stay on point, the wrong answers are far more obviously wrong...

overvalues an opinion

many LSAT arguments are faulty because the author makes an assumption that something is true because someone said so. an opinion does not guarantee that outcome. an opinion can't prove that an argument is true or that an argument is false. no opinion can prove something objective (like if something is tasty or ugly, or what have you)

examples of flaws in arguments

mistakes necessary characteristics for sufficient ones, and fails to consider other factors necessary or potentially important to the conclusion fails to consider that those mentioned in the premise may be an unrepresentative sample of the general population takes for granted that something true of a group must be true of an individual in that group takes for granted that a characteristic important for an outcome will ensure that outcome takes for granted that having characteristics important for an outcome is enough to reasonably expect that outcome

enough, but not necessary

mistaking one way for the only way also known as "mistaking sufficient for necessary" (this is where the author uses evidence that one element or characteristic is enough to reach the outcome to conclude that that element or characteristic must be involved in the outcome.

mirror flaw of mistaking necessary for sufficient

mistaking sufficient for necessary (one way is the only way).

necessary vs. sufficient traits

necessary-- characteristics that are needed to reach the conclusion but are not alone enough to definitely prove the argument. sufficient-- a trait that is enough to justify the conclusion mistaking necessary for sufficient is a common flaw in LSAT arguments

flaw questions "the reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it..." "The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that..." "which of the following is an error in the reasoning?"

these types of flaws are contained in what's wrong with using a particular support to reach a particular conclusion. 1- understand your job (read Q stem)... expectation: have very clear understanding of the flaw before moving on to the answer choices. 2- find the point during first read, prioritize identifying the conclusion of the argument. 3- find the support after find conclusion, figure out how that point is being supported. 4- figure out what's wrong with the argument 5- get rid of answers during first run through the answer choices, leave along any answers that sound pretty good, and focus on thinking about why answers are wrong. For flaw questions, should be able to consistently get rid of at least three of the answer choices before you seriously consider whether one answer is accurate. if you zeroed in on what's wrong with the relationship between point and support, will find that most answer choices fall outside that realm. many wrong answers will have nothing to do with the stimulus at all. or will have something to do with the secondary information in the argument... Many wrong answers will relate to the conclusion or premise but not the relationship between the two. A few wrong answers will misrepresent the relationship between the support and conclusion in some way. 6- confirm the right answer left with one or two serious contenders, carefully evaluate each answer choice to make sure it matches your understanding of the flaw. Go word for word, and pay attention to modifiers that may create a disconnect between the answer choice and stimulus.

how to see if a rule is conditional or not...

think about a rule in "both directions"

"not all" in logical terms (LSAT context)

this does NOT mean some. Not all just means not all, while common understanding implies that means some, you can say not all and mean none in the LSAT, it only means "less than all," none is less than all.

"only if"

this does not mean "if" if you're unsure of which it is, try playing out the scenario in both directions, and remember that only if statements will always flow in the reverse direction of "if" statements

what does a piece does not equal the puzzle mean?

this is when the argument overreaches in trying to justify a conclusion, using supporting evidence that may turn out to be just one part of a bigger picture.

QSCS: the argument's reasoning is questionable bc the argument...

this question asks what's wrong with the argument. Think critically about the argument before moving on to the answers. the right answer should be predictable but may not be worded as you expect

QSCS: Which one of the following arguments contains a flaw in reasoning that is similar to one in the argument above?

this question requires more work. Start by figuring out what is wrong with the argument, then eliminate answers that either reach a very different type of conclusion, use different types of support, or seem to have different problems. Confirm the right answer by matching conclusions, support, and reasoning issues.

grouping

want to represent all grouping issues vertically (makes visualizing grouping far easier)

strategy for when a question asks for one answer that must be true or one that must be false

we know that one answer must be true, ad four answers could be true or false; or one must be false and the others we won't know to be true or false. It is easier to search for the correct answer than it is to try to eliminate wrong ones

required assumption

what NEEDS to be true.... asks us to think about the problem in an argument in a very specific way. asks that we figure out the gap in reasoning, then find one answer that needs to be true if that gap is going to be filled. Very common. these questions often have less clearly definable flaws. They also commonly have stimuli with an excess of secondary information key = stick to a specific and narrow understanding of "required" , we are not being asked for answers that strengthen the argument, or even fix the argument, and many of the tempting wrong choices will perform these other functions 1- understand your job question stems for RA questions are defined by: they almost always have the word "assumption" and they must have some other word that indicates necessity (such as required, rely, or depend) 2- find the point 3- find the support 4- figure out what's wrong may need to move on without a complete picture of the flaw... 5- get rid of answers you generally can't anticipate the answer for a required assumption question. Reality is that when an argument is flawed, it generally requires many different assumptions; therefore, these questions will tend to have many possible right answers. Knowign this plays an important role in your elimination process. Don't eliminate an answer because it does not match what you were expecting. eliminate based on your understanding of the argument and your understanding of the task. the most attractive wrong choices are ones that seem to support the argument in some way, or perhaps even completely fix the argument. There's a difference between helpful and required, and if your focus is on required, these wrong choices will be more obviously wrong. 6- confirm the right answer For RA questions, use the negation test to confirm the correct answer. If the support is in fact required or necessary in order to reach a conclusion, it stands to reason that if the exact opposite of that support were true, it would severely hurt or destroy the argument being made. If you negate an answer choice and the negation does not hurt the argument, the answer was not something that was necessary to the argument.

when does it make sense to make two diagrams

when it's clear that the other rules in the game hinge on the outcome of the complex "or" condition

Numbers issues

when the number of elements doesn't equal the number of positions, or when games involve subsets, can have these issues. Have to think about whether elements will be included or not, or whether slots will be filled or not (simple notation helps here)