*** Question Stems and Conclusion/Evidence Indicators
"Judgement/Action" in Principle Question Stem
- Turns MBT into a Parallel Reasoning principle - Identify the answer choice that directly folows from the statements in the stim
Third Family
- Weaken
what is a premise?
- a fact from which a conclusion can be made - gives you a reason why something should be believed - supports and explains the conclusion
what is a conclusion?
- a statement that follows from one or more reasons
"If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be false?"
Cannot Be True
"Of the following claims, which one can most justifiably be rejected on the basis of the statements above?"
Cannot Be True
"The argument can most reasonably be interpreted as an objection to which one of the following claims?"
Cannot Be True
"The information above, if accurate, can best be used as evidence against which one of the following hypotheses?"
Cannot Be True
"The statements above, if true, most seriously undermine which one of the following assertions?"
Cannot Be True
"Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs if they also believe that"
Cannot Be True
"Which of the following is LEAST compatible with the information above?"
Cannot Be True
"Which of the following most clearly violates the information above?"
Cannot Be True
" Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT"
Cannot Be True Principle
"Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT"
Cannot Be True Principle
Accordingly ____
Conclusion Indicator
As a result ____
Conclusion Indicator
Clearly ____
Conclusion Indicator
Concludes that ____
Conclusion Indicator
Consequently ____
Conclusion Indicator
Follows that ____
Conclusion Indicator
For this reason (I'm out....)
Conclusion Indicator
Hence ____
Conclusion Indicator
Must be that ____
Conclusion Indicator
Shows that ____
Conclusion Indicator
So ____
Conclusion Indicator
Therefore ____
Conclusion Indicator
Thus ____
Conclusion Indicator
"If which one of the following is taken as true, then the conclusion above follows logically?"
JTC
"The argument in the passage is valid if"
JTC
"The conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
JTC
"The conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?"
JTC
"The conclusion above is properly drawn if which of the following is assumed?"
JTC
"The conclusion of the argument is properly drawn if which of the following completes the passage?"
JTC
"The conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that"
JTC
"Which one of the following is an assumption that would justify the conclusion above?"
JTC
"Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly inferred?"
JTC
"Which one of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn?"
JTC
"Which one of the following, if true, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?"
JTC
"Which one of the following, if true, enables the conclusion to be properly inferred?"
JTC
"Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle underlying the argumentation above?"
JTC Principle
"The conclusion follows logically if which of the following is assumed?"
JTC ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️
"Which one of the following, *if assumed*, allows the conclusion to be properly drawn?"
Justify The Conclusion
Answer Choice *correct* --> Conclusion *valid*
Justify The Conclusion
"Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle underlying the argumentation above?"
Justify The Conclusion Principle
"The statements above, if true, most strongly support which of the following?"
Most Strongly Supported
"The statements provide the most support for which of the following?"
Most Strongly Supported
"Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information above?"
Most Strongly Supported
"Which one of the following statements is most supported by the information above?"
Most Strongly Supported
"The information above provides the LEAST support for which one of the following?"
Most Strongly Supported EXCEPT - LEAST makes this an *except* question and the presence of "support for which of the following" means it's MSS - the 4 incorrect answers MUST BE SUPPORTED by the stim (anything that MBT) - The correct answer is not necessarily true or it's unsupported
"The *statements above*, if *true*, most strongly support which one of the following?"
Most Strongly Supported ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ - Since it says "STATEMENTS ABOVE, if TRUE" it means that the author accepts the stimulus as true and thinks of the answer choices as sketch - You must use the stimulus to prove one of the answer choices
Sonya's statements, if true, most strongly support which of the following?
Most Strongly Supported ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
"Which one of the following is most strongly *supported by* the information *above*?"
Most Strongly Supported ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ - Accept the stim as true to prove one of the answer choices -- use only the info in the stim ! - The correct answer is most strongly supported by the info above
"Which one of the following can be inferred from the passage above?"
Must Be True
"The information above provides grounds for accepting which of the following statements?"
Must Be True - "Accepting which one of the following statements" is identical to asking you to find the answer that's proven by the info in the stim
"Which of the following conclusions most closely conforms to the principle above?"
Must Be True Principle
"Which one of the following conclusions most closely conforms to the principle above?"
Must Be True Principle
"If the information above is correct, which one of the following conclusions can be properly dawn on the basis of it?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"If the information from above is correct, which one of the following must also be true?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"If the statements above are true, which one of the following conclusions can be drawn on the basis of it?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"If the statements above are true, which one of the following conclusions can be properly dawn on the basis of it?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"If the statements above are true, which one of the following conclusions can be properly drawn on the basis of it?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"The statements above, if true, which of the following must also be true?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"The statements above, if true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"The statements above, if true, which one of the following conclusions can be properly drawn on the basis of it?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements?"
Must Be True ↓↓↓↓↓↓
"Jones and Smith disagree about whether"
Point at Issue
"On the basis of their statement, Logan and Mendez disagree over whether"
Point at Issue
"The dialogue above lends the most support to the claim that Sher and Fran disagree with each other about which of the following statements?"
Point at Issue
"The issue in dispute between Rachel and Lindsay is the"
Point at Issue
"Which of the following is a point at issue between the nutritionist and the advocate?"
Point at Issue
"Which of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between Tom and Mary?"
Point at Issue
"Which of the following most accurately represents what's the issue between Jorge and Ruth?"
Point at Issue
"Ariel's and Haley's statements provide the most support for the claim that they agree about which one of the following?"
Point of Agreement
"On the basis of their statements, Diego and Cristiano are committed to agreeing about which of the following?"
Point of Agreement
"The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Paul and Roger agree that"
Point of Agreement
"The discussion above indicates that Maya and Clare agree with each other that which of the following is true?"
Point of Agreement
Justify The Conclusion Strategy
Premise + *answer choice* = Proven Conclusion If answer choice *true* --> conclusion *true* When added with the premises, this answer choice PROVES the conclusion The correct answer strengthens the argument so MUCH, that the conclusion must follow Since the answer must be sufficient to prove (good enough), it can contain extra info that normal assumption questions don't 1. Identify the conclusion and premises 2. Identify what's in the conclusion but *not* in the premises 3. Select the answer choice that logically proves the conclusion when added with the given premises by looking for gaps btwn evidence/conc...this answer is SUFFICIENT (good enough) to prove the conclusion ... so it can contain extraneous info 4. any "new" element in the conclusion *must appear* in the correct answer choice...if it's in the conclusion it must be proven 5. elements common to the conclusion and at least one premise *usually don't appear* in the correct answer 6. elements in a premise but not conclusion *usually appear* in the answer 7. Your answer choice when *combined with the premises* needs to result in PROVING THE CONCLUSION
"The assertion that a later artist tampered with the paintings serves which of the following functions in the argument?"
Role
"The claim that inventors sometimes serve as their own engineers plays which of the following roles in the argument?"
Role
"The claim that people have positive responses to words plays which of the following roles in the argument?"
Role
"The statement "thinking machines modeled are likely to fail" serves which of the following roles in Yang's argument?"
Role
"Which *one* of the following, if *true*, provides the *most* support for the argument?"
STRENGTHEN ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ - Since it says "Which ONE of the FOLLOWING, if TRUE," it means you are accepting the answer choices as true to bolster the argument above - You are accepting the answer choices as true (not the stim) to help SUPPORT the argument above - Most means we are strengthening it enough, but not justified 100% , so we know it's not JTC
Assumption Negation
If you negate an answer choice in an assumption question and the conclusion falls APART, that *answer is correct* because Conclusion *valid* --> Assumption *true* if we negate the necessary and it breaks the conclusion, that's the correct answer because that answer choice is required for the conclusion
Weaken Strategy
*CORRECT ANSWER CAN HURT THE CONCLUSION OR DO NOTHING @ ALL FOR THE ARGUMENT* 1. Identify conclusion + how the author arrived there 2. Personalize the argument: What would you say to hurt his argument? 3. Attack the argument by making the conclusion *less likely* ... the correct answer doesn't destroy/contradict conclusion completely BUT attacks it by pointing out an element/possibility the author didn't account for 4. Focus on the conclusion! Almost all correct answers impact the conclusion 5. Hurt the argument by attacking the conclusion; showing it doesn't necessarily follow from the premises 6. Look for gaps/weaknesses, the correct answer may address those 7. Ask yourself "Would the author be forced to respond?"
Most Strongly Supported Strategy
*Same as MBT but held to a lower degree of certainty* *Correct answer* is the one that makes the MOST sense based off the stimulus *Correct answer* seems extremely likely but still not provable 100% 1. Figure out what's most strongly supported based off the stim -- stim has all you need 2. Look for concrete/definite statements to make logical connections 3. Use formal logic/keywords to make further deductions
Paradox Except
- 4 incorrect answers that resolve/explain the situation - 1 correct answer that would confuse the situation or have no impact
"If the statements above are true, which of the following CANNOT be true?"
Cannot Be True
Second Family ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️
- Assumption - Justify - Strengthen/Support - Paradox
Fourth Family
- Cannot Be True
First Family ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
- MBT/MSS - Main Point - Point of Issue / Point of Agreement - Method - Role - Flaw - Parallel Reason / Parallel Flaw
When the ANSWER CHOICES are said to conform to the STIM , what kind of principle are you facing?
- Must Be True Principle - Parallel Principle - Parallel Flaw Principle
Justify The Conclusion Overall
- Select the answer choice that is GOOD ENOUGH to *PROVE* the conclusion - When combined w/ the existing premises, the correct answer will prove the conclusion - The correct answer strengthens it so much that the conclusion *must* follow - Link the gap between the evidence/conclusion elements - Since this answer choice is sufficient to prove the conclusion, it can contain extra info
When the STIM is said to conform to one of the principles in the ANSWER CHOICES, what kind of principle are you facing?
- Strengthen Principle - JTC Principle
Strengthen Principle Strategy
- each answer choice contains a principle that acts as an additional premise to support/prove the conclusion - think in abstract terms to identify the underlying issue/belief that can be used to draw the conclusion - as you analyze the answer choices, tie the idea/belief to structure of argument - ask yourself: if this answer choice is true, does it support/prove the conclusion?
Fourth Family Rules ⤈ ⤈ ⤈
- ⤈ ⤈ ⤈ ⤈ because it's the polar OPPOSITE of First Family - ⤈ ⤈ ⤈ ⤈ ... You use the info in the *STIM* to prove one of the answers CANNOT occur - You must use the information in the *STIM* to prove that one of the answers *CANNOT OCCUR* - If an answer choice contains info that doesn't appear directly in the stim or logical combination, then that answer could be TRUE and is therefore *incorrect* - *CORRECT* answer will directly disagree w/ the stimulus/logical combination from stim *WHAT TYPES ARE IN THE FOURTH FAMILY* 1. Cannot Be True (BC it's polar opp of First Fam Inference ?s)
Third Family Rules ⤉ ⤉ ⤉ ⤉
- ⤉ ⤉ ⤉ ⤉ because Weaken is the polar opposite of Second Family because *instead* of helping the author out, you want to HURT him more and ATTACK the argument - *STIM* is *SUS* and often contains reasoning errors and you will further weaken the argument w/ the correct answer - the answer choices are accepted as given even if they include "new" info - your task: determine which answer best attacks the argument *WHAT TYPES ARE IN THE THIRD FAMILY???* 1. Weaken (just weaken, breh)
Second Family Rules ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️
- ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ because you accept the *ANSWER CHOICES* as *TRUE* and you use the correct answer to help the author out in his argument (you can't dispute their factual basis even if they include - New or outside info is OK because we are accepting the answer choices as true to secure the argument ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ - Help the author's argument or statement in some way, whether by revealing an assumption or resolving a paradox or helping in some other fashion bc often there are errors of reasoning/leaps in logic - Use the answer choice to close the hole - Your task: is to examine each answer choice and see which one fits the exact criteria in the ? stem (justify, strengthen, etc) *WHAT TYPES ARE SECOND FAMILY QUESTIONS???* 1. Assumption 2. Justify 3. Strengthen/Support 4. Paradox
First Family Rules ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
- ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ because whatever is in the stimulus is ACCEPTED as given and you must use that and only that (plus logical combo/umbrella) to prove one of the answer choices - Accept the *STIM* as *TRUE* (regardless of if there are errors in the reasoning), and use that info (and that info only) to prove one of the answer choices - You cannot bring in additional information, only what's stated in the stimulus - Any info that doesn't appear directly in stim, or a logical combination, or under the umbrella of a concept from the stim is INCORRECT *WHAT TYPES ARE FIRST FAMILY???* 1. Must Be True / Most Strongly Supported 2. Main Point 3. Point of Issue / Point of Agreement 4. Method of Reasoning 5. Flaw 6. Parallel Reason / Parallel Flaw
Cannot Be True Strategy
1. Accept the info in the stim and use that and ONLY that to prove an answer can't occur/is impossible 2. Answers containing info not in stim/combo of stim *can be true* --> eliminate 3. Look for an answer that directly disagrees with the stim or consequence of stim 4. If #s and %: Look for answer that violates numerical outcome 5. If conditional reasoning, look for answer where Suff occurs but Nec *DOESN'T* 6. Test answer choices to try to make them possible w/ the info in the stim...if they're possible --> eliminate
Point at Issue Strategy
1. Analyze the stim 2. Predict what the disagreement is between the 2 speakers + their conclusions 3. Use Agree/Disagree test + select answer where one speaker would say "I agree this statement is correct" and the other would say "I disagree, this statement is incorrect"
Evaluate Strategy
1. Analyze the stimulus 2. Separate answers into contenders/losers 3. Apply Variance Test: Provide 2 polar opposite responses to the questions posed in each answer choice... correct answer = both responses have different effects on the conclusion correct answer = changes your view on the validity of the conclusion...one response strengthens/other weakens
"If the statements above are true, which of the following cannot be true?"
Cannot Be True
Must Be True Strategy
1. Figure out what must be true based off the stim -- first family so the stimulus has all you need to figure out what must be true 2. look for concrete/definite statements to make logical connections/deductions 3. use formal logic/keywords to make further connections to figure out what must be true 4. ask yourself: what do I know off the basis of reading this?
Assumption Strategy
1. Focus on conclusion + how author arrived 2. Make a solid prediction on correct answer..think of this as a minimalist answer bc the author MUST believe this to be true 3. Look for logical gaps btwn evid/conc, then for an answer that links those elements...SUPPORTER 4. if no gaps/out-of-nowhere info, look for a flaw in the argument, then for an answer that WEEDS OUT THAT FLAW...DEFENDER 5. Be cautious of strongly worded/extra info/useless 6. Look for an answer that fills the logical gap btwn evid/conc OR weeds out a weakness in the author's argument Conclusion *valid* --> Assumption *true*
Assumption
1. Focus on conclusion and how author arrived 2. Generate solid prediction of answer 3. Look for logical gaps from evid/conc so you can link that info together -- SUPPORTER ANSWER 4. if you don't see any logical gaps or out-of-nowhere information, look for a flaw in the argument and attack that area of weakness -- DEFENDER ANSWER 5. be cautious of strongly worded/restrictive info/useless info 6. look for an answer that fills the gap btwn evidence/conc or an answer that weeds out a weakness Conclusion *valid* --> Assumption *true* Assumption Negation: if you negate an answer choice and it weakens the conclusion/destroys it, it's *correct*
Strengthen Strategy
1. Identify conc (what you want to strenghten) and identify the premises 2. Personalize the argument: how would you help the author make his argument more soundproof? 3. Help the author by making the conclusion more likely.. can strengthen as little as 1% 4. Focus on the conclusion! almost all correct answers impact the conclusion 5. If there is a survey/data/analogy, establish the validity of that 6. Look for gaps/weaknesses, because the correct answer could address that 7. Ask yourself: "Would this assist the author in any way?"
Weaken Strategy
1. Identify conc + how author arrived there 2. Personalize the argument "How would you hurt this argument?" 3. Attack the argument by making the conclusion less likely..the correct answer doesn't completely destroy/contradict the conclusion but attacks it in a way the author didn't account for 4. Focus on the conclusion -- almost all correct answers impact the conclusion 5. Attack the argument by showing the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises/isn't supported 6. Look for gaps/weaknesses, the correct answer may address those 7. Ask yourself "Would this force the author to respond?"
Assumption ~
1. Identify conc + premises 2. Make a solid prediction on author's assumption 3. Look for gaps btwn evid/conc and close those gaps w/ a supporter answer 4. If no gaps/new info, look for a weakness and then an answer that attacks that weakness, defending the argument 5. be wary of exaggeration/useless info 6. choose the minamalist answer: the author must believe this to be true for the argument to make sense 7. assumption negation
Main Point Strategy
1. Identify conclusion 2. Use the One-Sentence Rule: if the author were to keep one sentence, what would it be ? 3. Look for author's opinion -- usually conc 4. Be wary of sub vs main conclusions: the sub is just evidence supporting the main conclusion
Strengthen Strategy
1. Identify conclusion (what you're trying to strengthen!) and identify premises 2. Personalize the argument: How could you help the author make his argument more sound? 3. Help the author by making the conclusion more likely; can strengthen as little as 1% 4. Focus on the conclusion -- almost all correct answers impact conclusion 5. look for gaps/weaknesses and consider that the correct answer may attack those 6. if you see survey/data/analogy, establish the validity of that 7. Ask yourself "would this assist the author in any way?"
Paradox Strategy
1. Identify the contradiction between the 2 facts 2. Predict how to solve the discrepancy 3. Look for an answer that shows how both facts can be logically correct...showing both sides can coexist/how they came to be *while* keeping the facts of the stim consistent ! 4. Ask yourself if this answer choice could lead to the scenario in the stimulus
Strengthen Strategy
1. Identify conclusion (what you're trying to strengthen!) and the premises 2. Personalize the argument: How would you help the author make this argument more sound? 3. Help the author by making the conclusion more likely to follow... can strengthen as little as 1% 4. Focus on the conclusion -- almost all correct answers impact the conclusion 5. if you see survey/analogy/data, establish the validity of those 6. Look for gaps/weaknesses, the correct answer can rule those out 7. Ask yourself "would this answer choice assist the author in any way?"
Flaw Strategy
1. Identify conclusion and error in how author arrived there 2. Find the disconnect between evidence/conc 3. Identify flaw from common patterns or analyze how the author's reasoning isn't enough 4. Ask yourself: "Why is the evidence not enough to prove this conclusion?"
Justify The Conclusion
1. Identify conclusion and premises 2. Identify what's in conc but nowhere else 3. Select answer that when added with given premises is good enough to PROVE the conclusion 4. any new element in conclusion will be in correct answer 5. element common to conc and premise usually isn't in correct answer 6. element in prem but not conc is usually in answer 7. when added with the given premises, this answer must be good enough to prove the conclusion Premises + Answer choice = conclusion
Weaken Strategy
1. Identify conclusion and premises 2. Personalize argument: "How would you hurt the author's argument?" 3. Attack the argument by making the conc less likely...the correct answer doesn't contradict/destroy it completely but attacks it in a way that author didn't consider 4. Focus on the conclusion -- almost all correct answers impact the conclusion 5. Attack the argument by showing conc doesn't necessarily follow from the premises 6. If you see gap/weakness, find an answer that highlights that 7. Ask yourself: "Would this force the author to respond?"
Strengthen Strategy
1. Identify the conclusion (what you want to strengthen!) and the premises 2. Personalize the argument: How would you help the author make this argument more soundproof? 3. Help the author by making his conclusion more likely...can strengthen as little as 1% 4. Focus on the conclusion! Almost all correct answers impact the conclusion 5. If you have a survey/data/analogy, establish the validity of that 6. Look for gaps/weaknesses because the correct answer could address those 7. Ask yourself: "Would this help the author in any way?"
Method of Reasoning Strategy
1. Identify the conclusion + how author arrived there 2. Make a prediction on the argument's setup and structure *before* heading to answer choices 3. Ask yourself how the author arrived @ the conclusion 4. Focus on how the evidence shapes the conclusion...what kind of evidence is being used?
Assumption Strategy
1. Identify the conclusion and how author arrived 2. Make a solid prediction on author's assumption 3. Look for gaps btwn evidence/conclusion and find an answer that closes that gap -- supporter 4. if no out-of-nowhere info/no gap, look for a weakness and an answer choice that throws out that weakness and defends the argument -- defender 5. Watch out for strongly worded/exaggerated/out of scope info 6. Look for minimalist answer because the author MBT for this argument to make sense 7. Assumption Negation Technique
Justify The Conclusion Strategy
1. Identify the conclusion and how the author arrived 2. Identify what's in the conclusion but nowhere else in the argument 3. Select the answer choice that's good enough (sufficient) to PROVE the conclusion, when added with the given premises by linking elements 4. Any new element in the conclusion WILL appear in the correct answer 5. Any element common to conc and at least one premise usually DOESN'T APPEAR in the correct answer 6. Any element in premise but not conclusion USUALLY appears in the correct answer 7. This answer when combined with the given premises, must PROVE the conclusion
Method of Reasoning Strategy
1. Identify the conclusion and how the author arrived there 2. Make a prediction of the argument's setup and structure *before* heading to answer choices 3. Ask yourself: "How did the author arrive at this conclusion?" 4. Focus on how the evidence shapes the conclusion..what kind of evidence was used?
Method of Reasoning Strategy
1. Identify the conclusion and how the author arrived there 2. Make a prediction on the argument's setup and structure *before* heading to the answer choices 3. Ask yourself "How did the author arrive at his conclusion?" 4. Focus on how the evidence *shapes* the conclusion...what kind of evidence was being used?
Method of Reasoning Strategy
1. Identify the conclusion and how the author arrived there 2. Predict the argument's setup/structure before heading to answer choices 3. ask yourself: how did the author arrive @ his conclusion 4. focus on how the evidence *shapes* the conclusion...what kind of evidence is being used?
Justify The Conclusion Strategy
1. Identify the conclusion and premises 2. Identify what's in the conclusion but not the premises and see how you can CLOSE THE GAP 3. Select the answer choice that's sufficient (good enough) to *PROVE* the conclusion -- when combined with the existing premises 4. any new element in the conclusion *WILL* appear in the correct answer 5. elements common to conc and at least one premise usually *DONT* appear in correct answer 6. element in premise but not conc *USUALLY* appear in correct answer 7. when combined with the existing premise, this answer choice should *prove* the conclusion Premise + *answer choice* = proven conclusion Answer Choice *true* --> Conclusion *valid* Since it must be sufficient enough to prove the conclusion, the correct answer can have extraneous info The correct answer strengthens the argument so much that the conclusion *HAS TO FOLLOW*
Paradox
1. Identify the contradiction between the 2 facts 2. Predict how to solve this discrepancy 3. Choose the answer that shows how both sides can be factually correct -- how they can co-exist/how they came to be: can bring in new info 4. Ask yourself: "Would this answer choice lead to the scenario in the stim?"
Parallel Reasoning Strategy
1. Identify the features of the argument most likely to be "points of separation" 2.Match the Method of Reasoning 3. Match the conclusion 4. Match the premises 5. Match the validity of the argument ** you don't have to apply these in a rigid order, but integrate them into a set of items that you apply according to what's most notable/significant about the stim **
Role Strategy
1. Locate the statement in question 2. Characterize the function of that statement + its purpose 3. ask yourself is it evidence or conclusion? what kind of evidence? is it a sub conclusion? a main conclusion?
Role Strategy
1. Locate the statement in question 2. Use keywords to characterize the function + purpose of that statement 3. Ask yourself if it's evidence or a conclusion..sub conclusion? main conclusion? what kind of evidence?
Parallel Reasoning: What needs to be parallel?
1. Method of Reasoning 2. Conclusion 3. Premises 4. Validity
Parallel Reasoning: What does NOT need to be parallel?
1. Topic 2. Order of how conc/prem are presented
Parallel Principle Strategy
1. Use the principle in the stim and apply it to the situation in each answer 2. Find the answer that follows from the application of the principle / matches the principle 3. Usually conditional, so you can diagram 4. Ask yourself "Does this match the attributes of the principle in the stimulus?"
"On which of the following assumptions does the argument rely?"
Assumption
"The argument assumes which one of the following?"
Assumption
"The conclusion cited does not follow *unless*"
Assumption
"The position taken above presupposes which one of the following?"
Assumption
"Which of the following is an assumption on which Barnes' argument depends?"
Assumption
"Which of the following is an assumption required by the historian's argument?"
Assumption
"Which of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?"
Assumption
"Which one of the following is an assumption *required* by the author?"
Assumption
"Which one of the following is an assumption on which the columnist's argument depends?"
Assumption
"Which one of the following is an assumption that the art historian's argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?"
Assumption
"Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?
Assumption ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️
Conclusion *valid* --> Assumption *true*
Assumption ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️
"Given the information in the passage, which of the following must be false?"
Cannot Be True
"If all the claims made above are true, then each of the following could be true EXCEPT?"
Cannot Be True
"Clarification of which one of the following issues would be most important to an evaluation of the skeptics' position?"
Evaluate
"In evaluating Yang's argument, it would be most helpful to know whether"
Evaluate
"The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the truth of the conclusion drawn in the advertisement?"
Evaluate
"The answer to which of the following questions would contribute most to an evaluation of the argument?"
Evaluate
"Which of the following would be most important to know in evaluating the hypothesis in the passage?"
Evaluate
"Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to judge whether what the scientist learned calls into question the hypothesis?"
Evaluate
"Which one of the following would it be most relevant to investigate in evaluating the conclusion of George's argument?"
Evaluate
As indicated by ____
Evidence Indicator
Because ____
Evidence Indicator
Due to ____
Evidence Indicator
For ____
Evidence Indicator
For example ______
Evidence Indicator
For the reason that ____
Evidence Indicator
Given that ____
Evidence Indicator
In that ____
Evidence Indicator
Owing to ____
Evidence Indicator
Since ____
Evidence Indicator
This can be seen from ____
Evidence Indicator
We know this by ____
Evidence Indicator
"Which one of the following is an argumentative strategy employed in the argument?"
Method of Reasoning
"A questionable aspect of the reasoning above is that it"
Flaw
"In which of the following ways does the professor's argument fail o address the student's argument?"
Flaw
"The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?"
Flaw
"The author's reasoning contains which of the following errors?"
Flaw
"The questionable aspect of the reasoning is that it"
Flaw
"The reasoning above is flawed because it fails to recognize"
Flaw
"The reasoning in the activist's argument is flawed because that argument"
Flaw
"The reasoning in the argument is fallacious because the argument"
Flaw
"The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument"
Flaw
"The reasoning in the argument is questionable because it"
Flaw
"The reasoning in the astronomer's argument is flawed because this argument"
Flaw
"The reasoning in the philosopher's argument is flawed because it"
Flaw
"The reasoning is flawed in that the argument"
Flaw
"Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial's argument?"
Flaw
"Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument?"
Flaw
"If the statements above are true, which one of he following must also be true?"
MBT
"Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?"
MBT
"The main point of the argument is that"
Main Point
"Which of the following most accurately expresses the argument's conclusion?"
Main Point
"Which of the following most logically completes the passage?"
Main Point
"The main point of the argument is that"
Main Point ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
"Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the journalist's argument?"
Main Point ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
"Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?"
Main Point ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ 1. Find the author's conclusion 2. Use the One-Sentence Rule: If the author were to keep ONE sentence, what would it be? 3. Look for author's opinion -- usually conc 4. be wary of sub/main conclusions...ask yourself which one is supporting the other? subsidiary conclusions act as further evidence that's supporting the main conclusion
"Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?"
Method
"Aiesha responds to Adam's argument by"
Method of Reasoning
"The argument derives its conclusion by"
Method of Reasoning
"The argument employs which of the following reasoning techniques?"
Method of Reasoning
"The argument proceeds by"
Method of Reasoning
"The method of the argument is to"
Method of Reasoning
"Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?"
Method of Reasoning
"Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the discrepancy above?"
Paradox
"Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict described above?"
Paradox
"Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the discrepancy above?"
Paradox
"Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively resolve the apparent paradox above?
Paradox
"Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively resolve the paradox above?"
Paradox
"The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?"
Parallel Flaw
"The questionable pattern of reasoning in the argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?
Parallel Flaw
"The principle above, if established, would justify which one of the following judgements?"
Parallel Principle
"Which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principle above?"
Parallel Principle
"Which one of the following judgments best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument above?"
Parallel Principle
"Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle above?"
Parallel Principle
"Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principles stated by the moralist?"
Parallel Principle
"Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning above?"
Parallel Reason
"Which one of the following provides the best illustration of the principle above?"
Parallel Reason Principle - correct answer matches the principle and further provides a justification that matches the premise in the stim
"The structure of the reasoning in the argument above is most parallel to that in which one of the following?"
Parallel Reasoning
"Which of the following arguments is most similar in its logical features to the argument above?"
Parallel Reasoning
"Which of the following is most closely parallel in reasoning to the reasoning in the argument above?"
Parallel Reasoning
"Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?"
Parallel Reasoning
"Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that above?"
Parallel Reasoning
"The principle above, if established, would justify which one of the following judgements?"
Parallel Reasoning Principle
"Which one of the following judgements best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument above?"
Parallel Reasoning Principle
"Which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principle above?"
Parallel Reasoning Principle
"Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?"
Strengthen
"Which one of the following, if true, most strongly *supports* the statement above?"
Strengthen
"Each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT"
Strengthen EXCEPT ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ - 4 incorrect answers will strengthen and the correct answer has NO EFFECT on the argument or WEAKENS
"The information above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"
Strengthen Principle
"Which of the following principles, if established, most helps to justify Sharon's position?"
Strengthen Principle
"Which one of the following is a principle that, if established, would best support Jeff's conclusion"
Strengthen Principle
"Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the reasoning above?"
Strengthen Principle
"the information most closely conforms to which of the following principles?"
Strengthen Principle
"Which of the following, if valid, most clearly helps to strengthen the argument above?"
Strengthen ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️
"Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the statement above?"
Strengthen ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️
"Which of the following, if true, does MOST to justify the conclusion above?"
Strengthen ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ - the "MOST" makes it strengthen bc it's not 100% foolproof -- unlike JTC which is 100%
"Which *one* of the following, if true, most strongly *supports the argument* above?"
Strengthen ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ - Accept the answer choice as true to bolster the stim - The answer is doing the strengthening
Conclusion Identification Method
Take the statements under consideration for the conclusion and place them in a way that forces one to be the conclusion, and the other(s) to be the premise(s). Use premise and conclusion indicators to achieve this end. Once the pieces are arranged, determine if the pieces make logical sense. If not rearrange until a logical order is produced.
Strengthen EXCEPT
The 4 Incorrect Answers will strengthen the argument and *the correct answer has NO EFFECT/WEAKENS THE ARGUMENT*
"Which one of the following, if true, would most call into question the researchers' hypothesis?"
Weaken ⇞ ⇞ ⇞ ⇞
Subsidiary Conclusion
The subsidiary conclusion is still a conclusion but it's NOT THE MAIN CONCLUSION. It acts as a PREMISE that's actually supporting the main conclusion In "Role" we see subsidiary conclusions, usually placed after a conclusion indicator @ the end of the argument (can be dramatic/misleading such as "Clearly" or "Obviously) whereas the main conclusion usually does not have an indicator
"Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?"
Weaken
"Which *one* of the following would undermine the doctor's argument?"
Weaken ⇞ ⇞ ⇞ ⇞
"Which *one* of the following, if true, most undermines the argument presented above?"
Weaken ⇞ ⇞ ⇞ ⇞
"Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the claim above?"
Weaken ⇞ ⇞ ⇞ ⇞
"Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?"
Weaken ⇞ ⇞ ⇞ ⇞
