LRB Most Important to Review

If the statements above are true, then which one of the following must be false?

Cannot Be True

If the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?

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

Justify the Conclusion The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

Justify the Conclusion

The conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the

Justify the Conclusion

The conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumend?

Justify the conclusion

Which one of the following is an assumption that would serve to justify the conclusion above?

Justify the conclusion

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly drawn?

Justify the conclusion

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly inferred?

Justify the conclusion

Which one of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Justify the conclusion

which one of the following, if true, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Justify the conclusion

Which one of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?

Method of Reasoning

Which one of the following is an argumentative strategy employed in the argument?

Method of Reasoning

The assertion that a later artist tampered with Veronese's painting serves which one of the following functions in the curator's argument?

Method of Reasoning - AP

The claim that inventors sometimes serve as their own engineers plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

Method of Reasoning - AP

The statement 'thinking machines closely modeled on the brain are also likely to fail' serves which one of the following roles in Yang's argument?

Method of Reasoning - AP

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

Most Strongly Supported

Which one of the following statement is most supported by the information above?

Most Strongly Supported

The statements provide the most support for which one of the following?

Most Strongly supported

Which one of the following conclusions most closely conform s to the principle above?

Must - PR

If the information above is correct, 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

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Must Be True/ Most Supported

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?

Must Be True/ Most Supported

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its logical features to the argument above?

Parallel Reasoning Questions

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?

Parallel Reasoning Questions

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

Parallel Reasoning Questions

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the reasoning in the argument above?

Parallel Reasoning Questions

Parallel Reasoning

Parallel Reasoning Questions - Ask you to identify the answer choice that contains reasoning most similar in structure to the reasoning presented in the stimulus - In the First Family : However, because of the abstract nature of these questions, comparing the stimulus to the answer choices takes on a different dimension

Which one of the following argument is most similar in its patter of reasoning to the argument above?

Parallel Reasoning/Parallel Flaw

On the basis of their statement, Logan and Mendez are committed to disagreeing over whether

Point at Issue

The dialogue above lends the most support to the claim that Sherrie and Fran disagree with each other about which one of the following statements?

Point at Issue

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between Tom and Mary?

Point at Issue

On the basis of their statements, Diego and Cristiano are committed to agreeing about which one of the following?

Point of Agreement

The dialogue provided the most support for the claim that Pauline and Roger agree that

Point of Agreement

The discussion above indicates that Maya and Clendon agree with each other that which one of the following is true?

Point of Agreement

Assumptions and Conditionality

Problems containing conditional reasoning tend to produce two types of assumption answer choices 1. If conditional statements are linked together in the argument, the correct answer choice for an Assumption question will typically supply a missing link in the chain e.g. p. 388 : Thus, if you encounter linked statements and an Assumption question, be prepared to supply the missing link or the contrapositive of that link. 2. The Assumption underlying a conditional statement is that the necessary condition must occur in order for the sufficient condition to occur - Thus, the author always assumes that any statement that would challenge the truth of the relationship is false. - If no conditional chains are present and only a conditional conclusion exists, the correct answer will usually deny scenarios where the sufficient condition occurs and the necessary does not. : In other words, the assumption in these arguments always protects the necessary condition - If you see a conditional conclusion and then are asked an Assumption question, immediately look for an answer that confirms that the necessary condition is truly necessary or that eliminates possible alternatives to the necessary condition. e.g. p. 388 - 390

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the passage above?

Resolve the Paradox

Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively resolve the apparent paradox above?

Resolve the Paradox

The Stimulus/Answer Choice Relationship - Cannot Be True

1. A notable feature of the relationship between the stimulus and the correct answer choice is that when the two are considered jointly, they create a paradox where both cannot simultaneously be true e.g. p. 624 - 626

Main Point

1. A variant of Must Be True questions. 2. Ask you to find the primary conclusion made by the author. 3. Ask you to summarize the author's point of view 4. First Family type - Answer you select must follow from the information in the stimulus. - Must pass fact test-But be careful: even if an answer choice must be true according to the stimulus if it fails to capture the main point it cannot be correct. 5. Every Main Point question stimulus contains an argument - if you apply the methods discussed about the arguments, you should already know the answer - Be careful, though: many Main Point problems feature a structure that places the conclusion either at the beginning or in the middle of the stimulus.

Source agreement

1. Also known as an ad hominem, this type of flawed argument attacks the person (or source) instead of the argument they advance. - Because the LSAT is concerned solely with argument forms, a speaker can never validly attack the character or motives of a person; instead, a speaker must always attack the argument advanced by a person e.g. p. 515 2. A source argument can take different forms, including the following - Focusing on the motives of the source - Focusing on the actions of the source (As in the above example) 3. Examples of how this error of reasoning can be described in answer choices p. 516

False Analogy

1. An analogy is a comparison b/w two items, and a False Analogy occurs when the author uses an analogy that is dissimilar to the original situation to be applicable e.g. p. 526 2. Examples of how a False analogy can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 526

Strengthen/support

1. Ask you to select the answer choice that provides support for the author's argument or strengthens it in some way (best supports the argument) 2. Second Family of questions 3. the correct answer choice does not necessarily justify the argument, nor is the correct answer choice necessarily an assumption of the argument - The correct answer choice simply helps the argument in some way 4. Most strengthen question stems typically contain the following two features - the stem uses the word "strengthen" pr a synonym : Strengthen : support : helps : most justifies - The stem indicates that you should accept the answer choices as true, usually with the following phrase : "which one of the following, if true..."

Mistaken Cause and Effect

1. Assuming a causal relationship on the basis of the sequence of events e.g. p. 518 2. Assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation exists e.g. p. 519 3. Failure to consider an alternate cause of the effect, or an alternate cause of both the cause and the effect e.g. p. 519 4. Failure to consider that the events may be reversed e.g. p. 519 - If you identify a stimulus with causal reasoning and are asked a Flaw question, quickly scan the answers for one that contains "cause," "effect," or both

Basic Causality and Strengthen Question

1. Because strengthen and Weaken questions require you to perform opposite tasks, to strengthen a basic causal conclusion you take the exact opposite approach that you would in a Weaken question 2. In Strengthen questions, supporting a cause and effect relationship almost always consists of performing one of the following tasks A. Eliminate any alternate causes for the stated effect : Because the author believes there is only one cause (the stated cause in the argument), eliminating one or more of the other possible causes strengthens the conclusion B. Show that when the cause occurs, the effect occurs - This type of answer can appear in the form of an example. C. Show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur - This type of answer also can appear in the form of an example D. Eliminate the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed E. Show that the data used to make the causal statement are accurate, or eliminate possible problems with the data : if the data used to make the causal statement are accurate, or eliminate possible problems with the data : if the data used to make a causal statement are in error, then the validity of the causal claim is in question : any information that eliminates error or reduces the possibility of error will support the argument Example questions analyzed p.332-335 - must review

Correct/Incorrect Answers to Main Point

1. Correct - the primary conclusion made by the author. - Must pass Fact Test 2. Incorrect - Answers that are true but do not encapsulate the author's point - Answers that repeat premises of the argument

Correct/Incorrect Answers for Assumption Question

1. Correct Answers - 2. Incorrect Answers - Answer choices that contain a statement that the author might only think could be true - the statement contains additional information that the author is not committed to (e.g. p. 369)

Parallel Reasoning questions - What to do if all else fails

1. If none of the four tests of analysis reveals the answer, or if nothing stands out to you when you examine the argument, you can always fall back on describing the stimulus in abstract terms. : Although less precise than the previous tests, this Test of Abstraction for the stimulus allows for one last shot at the problem. : To abstract the structure of the stimulus, create a short statement that summarizes the "action" in the argument without referring to the details of the argument e.g. p. 560

Causality in the Conclusion vs Causality in the Premises

1. If the causal statement is in the conclusion, then the reasoning is possibly flawed. 2. If the causal statement is in the premise, then the argument may be flawed, but most likely not because of the causal statement. Example - p. 291 - 292 - must review

The Double-Not Arrow

1. Just as the double arrow indicates that two terms must occur together, the double-not arrow indicates that two terms cannot occur together. e.g. IF Gomez runs for president, then Hong will not run for president 2. Double Not Arrow diagramming example p. 227 (full page) 3. The double-not arrow only prohibits one scenario - that where the two terms occur together.

The Thirteen LR question types

1. Must Be True/ Most Supported 2. Main Pint 3. Point at Issue/Point of Agreement 4. Assumption (Necessary Assumption) 5. Justify the Conclusion (Sufficient Assumption) 6. Strengthen/Support 7. Resolve the Paradox 8. Weaken 9. Method of Reasoning 10. Flaw in the Reasoning 11. Parallel Reasoning/Parallel Flaw 12. Evaluate the Argument 13. Cannot Be True

Situations that can lead to errors of causality

1. One event occurs before another e.g. p. 292 2. Two (or more) events occur at the same time e.g. p. 292

The Negative Logic Ladder

1. The Logic Ladder deals only with the "positive terms," and there is a separate Logic Ladder for negative terms, although this Ladder is less useful since the inherent inferences revealed by this Ladder rarely appear in LSAT Formal Logic problems. 2. Picture - p.444 - As in the first Ladder, each term represents a "rung," and the upper run terms automatically imply that the lower rung terms are known to be true. : Thus, if you have a "non" relationship, you automatically know that the "most are not" and "some are not" relationships for that same statement are true. - e.g p. 444 - At the lowest rung - some are not - no inferences follow : From the definition of some are not we know that most are not and none are possible, but we cannot know for sure that either is true.

The Logic Ladder

1. The Logic Ladder details the relationship b/w "all," "most," and "some" p. 443 2. In the ladder, each term represents a "rung" and the upper rung terms automatically imply that the lower rung terms are known to be true. - Thus, if you have an "all" relationship, you automatically know that the "most" and "some" relationships for that same statement are true e.g. p. 443 - The same is true for most relationships, but to a more limited extent e.g. p. 443 - the upper rungs automatically imply the lower rungs, but the lower rungs do not automatically imply the upper rungs. : As you go down the rungs the lower relationships must be true, but as you go up the rungs the higher relationships might be true but are not certain. 3. At the lowest rung - some - no inherent inferences follow. - From the definition of some we know that most and all are possible, but we cannot know for sure that they are true. 4. A close analysis of the Logic Ladder explains the presence of inherent inferences in "all" and "most" statements. e.g. p. 443 **Inherent Inference Recognition Drill p.443**

The Difference Between Causality and Conditionality

1. The chronology of the two events can differ 2. The connection between the events is different 3. The language used to introduce the statements is different.

Correct Answer/Incorrect Answer to Justify Question

1. The correct answer - proves the conclusion by adding a piece of information to the premises

Question Stem Family Review

1. The first family uses the stimulus to prove one of the answer choices must be true. No information outside the sphere of the stimulus is allowed in the correct answer choice 2. The Second family takes the answer choices as true and uses them to help the stimulus. Information outside the sphere of the stimulus is allowed in the correct answer choice. 3. The Third Family takes the answer choices as true and uses them to hurt the stimulus. Information outside the sphere of the stimulus is allowed in the correct answer choice 4. The Fourth Family uses the stimulus to prove that one of the answer choices cannot occur. No information outside the sphere of the stimulus is allowed in the answer choices.

Solving Justify Questions: The Mechanistic Approach

1. This approach requires you to reduce the stimulus to its component parts ( a process that occurs naturally as you identify premises and conclusion), and then identify which elements appear in the conclusion but not in the premises 2. The following rules apply - Any "new" element in the conclusion will appear in the correct answer - Elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one premise, or to two premises, normally do not appear in the correct answer - Elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion usually appear in the correct answer : Although these premise elements do not have to appear in the correct answer, they often do because they represent a convenient linking point 4. In a nutshell, the rules condense to the following : link new elements in the premises and conclusion and ignore elements common to both. e.g. p. 352 - 355

Straw Man

1. This error occurs when an author attempts to attack an opponent's position by ignoring the actual statements made by the opposing speaker and instead distorts and refashions the argument, making it weaker in the process 2. Often this error is accompanied by the phrase "what you're saying is" or "if I understand you correctly," which are used to preface the refashioned and weakened argument e.g. p. 520 3. Examples of how this error of reasoning can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 520

Prephrasing with Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported Questions

1. To prephrase, take a moment to consider what the elements in the stimulus add up to. 2. To do so, consider the premises together, and look for the connection between the elements.

Increase and Decreases in Likelihood and Degree

1. Two related presentations of causality on the LSAT involve causes that increase or decrease the force of the effect (Degree), or causes that increase the likelihood that the effect will or will not occur (the latter case is especially associated with partial causes) e.g. p. 303 2. When working with problems that introduce these ideas, the removal of the cause doesn't eliminate the effect, it just removes the increase or decrease in the effect. e.g. p. 303 3. Thus, as you examine the causal language in each problem, make note of when the relationship increases the degree or likelihood of the effect - While these elements are usually not the main focus of the problem (the existence of causality is usually the focus), the answer choices will typically reflect the fact that the causality is not simple an "A makes B" relationship

Active Resolution

1. When first presented with a Resolve question, most students seek an answer choice that destroys or disproves one side of the situation. - They follow the reasoning that if one side can be proven false, then the paradox will be eliminated. - While this is true, the test makers know that such an answer would be obvious (if would simply contradict part of the facts given in the stimulus) and thus this type of answer does not appear in these questions 2. Instead, the correct answer will actively resolve the paradox, that is, it will allow both sides to be factually correct and it will either explain how the situation came into being or add a piece of information that shows how the two ideas or occurrences can coexist 3. Because you are not seeking to disprove one side of the situation, you must select the answer choice that contains a possible cause of the situation - So, when examining answers, ask yourself if the answer choice could lead to the situation in the stimulus. : If so, the answer is correct e.g. p. 412 - 413

Words to Watch For: "Conform"

1. When this word is used in a question stem, it can be used in reference to either the stimulus or the answer choices When the answer choices are said to conform to the stimulus, then you are most likely facing a Must - PR or Parallel - PR (or Most Strongly Supported - PR or Parallel Flaw - PR; we'll use Must-PR and Parallel-PR to reference both question types in each case) - In these instances, you need an answer that follows the rules of the principle established in the stimulus When the stimulus is said to conform to one of the principles presented in the answer choices, then you are likely facing a Strengthen - PR question ( or a close relative such as Justify - PR), and you must find that answer choice that provides a principle that would strengthen the reasoning in the stimulus or underlie the author's line of reasoning

Method of Reasoning

1. ask you to describe, in abstract terms, the way in which the author made his or her argument. 2. As part of the First Family of Questions, Method of Reasoning questions feature the following information structure, modified slightly for the abstract nature of these questions - You can use only the information in the stimulus to prove the correct answer choice - Any answer choice that describes an element or a situation that does not occur in the stimulus is incorrect 3. Method of Reasoning question stems use a variety of formats, but in each case, the stem refers to the method, technique, strategy, or process used by the author while making the argument

Must Be True/ Most Supported

1. identify the answer choice that is best proven by the information in the stimulus. --> Key words: must be true, properly inferred 2. Must pass Fact Test 3. Do not bring in information from outside the stimulus 4. Most Strongly Supported Question stems reduces the degree of certainty needed in the correct answer choice.

Point at Issue/ Point of Agreement

1. require you to identify a point of contention b/w two speakers, - The question stem directs you to choose the answer that describes the point of disagreement - Variant of Must Be true questions - Part of the First Family Question type. : Accordingly, the Fact Test applies to Point at Issue questions 2. Point of Agreement questions = identify a point of agreement b/w two speakers - Closely related to Point at Issue questions, in that both require a comparison of the views of two speakers

Correct/Incorrect Answers to Strengthen

1. the correct answer choice - does not necessarily justify the argument - nor is the correct answer choice necessarily an assumption of the argument - The correct answer choice simply helps the argument in some way

The 11 Principles of Making Formal Logic Inferences

2. The 11 Principles (1) Start by looking at the ends of the chain : Variables that are linked in only one relationship are "open"; variables that are linked in two or more relationships are "closed." : Because the ends of a chain are naturally open variables and are involved in fewer relationships, they are easier to analyze e.g. p. 446 (2) The vast majority of additive inferences require either an all or none statement somewhere in the chain - Because all and none statements affect the entire group under discussion, they are very restrictive, and when other variables are joined to these relationships then inferences often result. - In fact, either all or none (or both) are present in the almost very formal Logic diagram that produces additive inferences. e.g. & e.p p. 446 (3) When making inferences, do not start with a variable involved in a double-not arrow relationship and then try to "go across" the double-not arrow e.g. & e.p. p. 446 (4) The Some Train - To make an inference with a variable involved in a "some relationship", either an "all arrow", "a none arrow", or "double-arrow" leading away from the "some relationship" is required. : e.g. & e.p. 446 - 449 - Some Train: In Some Train, each variable is considered a "station," and the relationships between each variable are "Tracks." : A successful "journey" (defined as a journey of at least two stops) yields an inference : An unsuccessful journey means no inference is present. e.g. p. 448 - To make our inference, we look at two elements : The weakest link in the chain : The presence of relevant negativity e.g. p. 448 - The Some Train can work in any direction as long as it is following the rules discussed previously. e.g. p. 449 ** Some Train Diagramming mini Drill p. 453** (5) The Most Train - The Most Train works in a very similar fashion to the Some Train, but because most is one step higher than some on the Logic Ladder, the Most Train produces stronger inferences e.g. p. 453 - Now, just as in the Some Train, to make our inference we look at two elements : The weakest link in the chain : The presence of relevant negativity e.g. p. 453 - The critical difference between the Some Train and Most Train is that because most has direction, you can only follow the most-arrow to make a most inference. : If you go "against" the arrow, the relationship will devolve to some, which is the inherent inference - Some students ask how to determine the weakest link. The weakest link is simply the least definite link, and so the major terms are in this order : 1. Some - this is the broadest term and the least definite; therefore it is the weakest : 2. Most - this is more definite than Some : 3. All and None - these two terms are the most definite, and although they are polar opposites, they are equal in power. **Most Train Diagramming Mini Drill p. 454** (6) Arrows and double-not arrows - Because arrows and double-not arrows are so powerful, they almost always elicit additive inferences. e.g. p. 456 - Any combination of an arrow and a double-not arrow in succession will yield an inference (although inherent inferences may be needed to make the inference). Any combination of two arrows may yield an inference depending on the configuration - Combination of two double-not arrows in succession does not yield an inference (7) Use inherent inferences - So far in our discussion we have avoided using inherent inferences to make additive inferences - none of the examples provided in this section has required the use of an inherent inference. On the LSAT, however, you will at times be forced to use an inherent inference to make an additive inference e.g. p. 459 (8) Watch for the relevant negativity - When making inferences - especially with the Some and Most Trains - special care must be paid to identifying relevant negativity. The presence of relevant negativity is defined as the following : 1. Either the first or last term in the inference chan is negated : 2. There is a double-not arrow in the chain (which will always appear just before the last station) e.g. p. 459 - One point of irrelevant negativity is if the negative is on the middle station e.g. p. 459 (9) Some and Most Combinations - In general, two consecutive somes, to consecutive mosts, or a some and most in succession will not yield any inferences. p. 459 - However, a problem involving two mosts that has appeared on the LSAT and does yield an inference is the following p. 460 (10) Analyzing Compound Statements p. 461 - 462 - Up to this point we have only analyzed statements with three variables and two connecting relationships - On the LSAT you will see even more complex relationships, but the skills we have discussed so far still apply to these more complex relationships, and, to some extent all compound relationships can be reduced to three-variable statements. - when working with compound statements (statements where there are four or more variables), keep in mind the following guidelines (A) Recycle your inferences to see if they can be used to create further inferences (B) Make sure to check the closed variables. e.g. p. 461 (11) Once an inference bridge is built, it does not need to be built again - One question often asked by student is, "Does an inference have to be makeable from both sides in order to be valid?" The answer is No e.g. p. 462

Evaluate the Argument Question Stem

Almost always use the word "evaluate" or a synonym such as "judge" or "assess," but the intent is always identical: the question stem asks you to identify the piece of information that would be most helpful in assessing the argument

The argument assumes which one of the following?

Assumption

Stimulus Peculiarities

Besides the discrepant or contradictory facts, most Resolve the Paradox stimuli contain the following features 1. No conclusion : The author is not attempting to persuade you, he or she just presents two sets of contradictory facts. - Thus, when you read a stimulus w/o a conclusion that contains a paradox, expect to see a Resolve the Paradox question 2. Language of Contradiction - In order to present a paradox, the test makers use languages that signals a contradiction is present, such as: But However Yet Although Paradoxically Surprisingly

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT

Cannot - PR

If all of the claims made above are true, then each of the following could be true EXCEPT

Cannot Be True

Agree/Disagree Test

Do not apply to all answer choices

The answer to which one of the following questions would contribute most to an evaluation of the argument?

Evaluate the Argument

Which one of the following would be most important to know in evaluating the hypothesis in the passage?

Evaluate the Argument

Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to judge whether what the scientist subsequently learned calls into question the hypothesis?

Evaluate the Argument

Which one of the following would it be most relevant to investigate in evaluating the conclusion of George's argument?

Evaluate the Argument

A questionable aspect of the reasoning above is that it

Flaw in the Reasoning

The reasoning above is flawed because it fails to recognize that

Flaw in the Reasoning

Justify the Conclusion Stimuli

In fact, most Justify stimuli either use Conditional Reasoning or contain numbers and percentages. - Because both forms of reasoning allow for certainty when drawing a conclusion. e.g. p. 348 - 351

Inferences vs. Assumptions

Inferences - Must Be True Assumptions - Assumed when making argument

If which one of the following is taken as true (assumed), the then conclusion above follows logically?

Justify

The conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Justify

Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

Justify

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle underlying the argumentation above?

Justify - PR

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Main Point

Therefore, _______

Main Point - Fill in the blank

Nested Conditionals

Nested Conditionals 1. When working with conditional reasoning, you will occasionally encounter nested conditionals, which occur when an entire conditional relationship is used as a complete condition inside another conditional statement. e.g. If you want a table at this restaurant you have to wait, unless you have a reservation. p. 235 - must review 2. These statements typically occur when you have multiple conditional indicators of the same type in a sentence, or multiple sentences all referring to the same conditions. - Most often this occurs in situation involving an exception, and so the word "unless" (or a synonymous phrase) is typically one of the necessary indicators present. 3. Another example - must review - p.236-237

Reference Substitution

One interesting variation on the use of reference words on the LSAT is when the test makers substitute synonymous or similar phrases to an entire concept - You must make sure you understand each usage clearly and that you know exactly what is being referenced

A common wrong answer for Method - AP

One trick used by test makers in Method - AP question is to create wrong answers that describe parts of the argument other than the part named in the question stem.

The principle above, if established, would justify which one of the following judgements?

Parallel - PR

Which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to help principle above?

Parallel - PR

Which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principle above?

Parallel - PR

Jones and Smith Disagree about whether...

Point at Issue

Which one of the following most accurately represents what is at issue between Jorge and Ruth

Point at Issue

Archelle's and Hakim's statements provide the most support for the claim that they agree about which one of the following?

Point of Agreement

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the discrepancy indicated above?

Resolve the Paradox

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict described above

Resolve the Paradox

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthen the argument?

Strengthen

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

Which one of the following, if valid, most clearly helps to strengthen the argument above?

Strengthen

which one of the following, if true, does most to justify the conclusion above?

Strengthen

The information above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?

Strengthen - PR

Inherent vs Additive Inferences

There are two types of Formal Logic inferences: inherent and additive Additive inferences result from combining multiple statements through a common term and then deducing a relationship that does not include the common term e.g. p. 438 - In LR, additive inferences are often the correct answer choice on Formal Logic problems. Inherent Inferences follow from a single statement and they are inferences that are known to be true simply from the relationship between the two variables. - e.g. p. 438 - 443 - Because inherent inferences are for the most part obvious, when we speak of making inferences in the future, we will almost always be referring to the process of making additive inferences. - Thus, when writing out inferences, do not include the inherent inferences. - However, sometimes the process of making an additive inference involves recognizing the inherent inferences present.

The Agree/Agree Test

This test should not be used on all five answers, but only on the remaining Contenders

Second Family Questions

Three Question Types in this family - Strengthen, Justify, and Assumption - are closely related (hardest among LR question types) The remaining Second Family question type - Resolve the Paradox 1. The stimulus will almost always contain an argument : In order to maximize your chances of success, you must identify, isolate, and assess the premises and the conclusion of the argument. : Only by understanding the structure of the argument can you gain the perspective necessary to understand the author's position. 2. Focus on the conclusion 3. The information in the stimulus is suspect. : There are often reasoning errors present, and you must read the argument very carefully in order to know how to shore up the argument. 4. These questions often yield strong prephrases. 5. The answer choices are accepted as given, even if they include "new" information"

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the claim above?

Weaken

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weaken the argument?

Weaken

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Weaken

An Advanced Cause and Effect Problem Analyzed

p.304 - 310

The argument proceeds by

Method of Reasoning

The method of the argument is to

Method of Reasoning

Aiesha responds to Adam''s argument by

Method of Reasoning

The argument derives its conclusion by

Method of Reasoning

Incorrect Answers in Method of Reasoning

1. "New" Element Answers 2. Half Right, Half Wrong Answers 3. Exaggerated Answers : Take a situation from the stimulus and stretch that situation to make an extreme statement that is not supported by the stimulus : Be careful, though! Just because an answer choice contains extreme language does not mean that the answer is incorrect. 4. The Opposite Answer 5. The Reverse Answer : Attractive because it contains familiar elements from the stimulus, but reverses them in the answer. : Since the reversed statement does not describe what occurred in the stimulus, it must be incorrect. Interestingly, the incorrect answer choices in any Method of Reasoning question can be helpful study aid in preparing for future questions. - Since the makers of the LSAT tend to reuse certain methods of reasoning, familiarizing yourself with those methods and the language used to describe them helps you prepare for when you encounter them again. - You should carefully study all Method of Reasoning answers - correct and incorrect - and it would not be unreasonable to keep a list of the different types of methods you encounter. : Remember, the wrong answer choice on one question could be the right answer choice on another question - After you complete the problem and are reviewing each wrong answer choice, try to imagine what type of argument would be needed to fit that answer : This exercise will strengthen your ability to recognize any type of argument structure

False Dilemma

1. A False Dilemma assumes that only two courses of action are available when there may be others e.g. p. 52 2. Do not confuse a False Dilemma with a situation where the author legitimately establishes that only two possibilities exist. - Phrase such as "either A or B will occur, but not both" can establish a limited set of possibilities, and certain real-world situations yield only two possibilities, such as "you are either dead or alive." - Example of how a False Dilemma can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 527

The All vs Part Conflict - Cannot Be True

1. A common misconception with these questions is that you are searching for an answer that conflicts with all parts of the stimulus. - That is not the case! Instead, you are looking for an answer that is in disagreement with any portion of the stimulus, where typically the correct answer only conflicts with a single sentence or phrase within the stimulus - Thus, there is usually a fair amount of non-essential or extraneous material in the stimulus in relation to the correct answer choice e.g. p. 626 - 627

Errors of Composition and Division

1. An error of composition occurs when the author attributes a characteristic of part of the group to the group as a whole or to each member of the group e.g. p. 525 2. An error of division occurs when the author attributes a characteristic of the whole (or each member of the whole) to a part of the group e.g. p. 525 3. E.g. of how this error of reasoning can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 525

Partial Cause and Multi-Cause Scenarios

1. Another form of advanced causality occurs when the author suggests that the relationship under discussion was comprised of several causes that all contributed to the effect, or that the cause being discussed was not the only cause present, but was rather just a partial cause of the effect 2. These conclusions thus use different causal language than the basic conclusions examined earlier. e.g. partial cause conclusions tend to feature language more along the following lines: - partly responsible - played a role in - was a factor in 3. Multi-cause conclusions tend to feature similar language as well, with a slight alteration to account for the multiple elements in play: - each was partly responsible - all played a role in - there were several factors - among other elements 4. When these scenarios occur, some of the typical presumptions that underlie single, absolute cause scenarios change. e.g. p. 301 - 302

Appeal Fallacies

1. Appeal to Authority : An Appeal to Authority uses the opinion of an authority in an attempt to persuade the reader. : The flaw in this form of reasoning is that the authority may not have relevant knowledge or all the information regarding a situation, or there may be a difference of opinion among experts as to what is true in the case e.g. p. 521 : e.g. of how this error of reasoning can be described in the answer choices p. 521 2. Appeal to Popular Opinion/Appeal to Numbers : This error states that a position is true because the majority believe it to be true. : just an appeal based on numbers e.g. p. 521 : e.g. of how this error of reasoning can be described in the answer choices p. 521 : This type of reasoning most often appears as an incorrect answer p. 521 3. Appeal to Emotion : An Appeal to Emotion occurs when emotions or emotionally-charged language is used in an attempt to persuade the reader e.g. p. 522 : Here are examples of how this error of reasoning can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 522

Method of Reasoning - Argument Part questions

1. Argument Part (AP) questions are a subset of Method of Reasoning questions. 2. In Method - AP questions, the question stem cites a specific portion of the stimulus and then asks you to identify the role and cited portion plays in the structure of the argument 3. The answer choices in each problem then describe the structural role of the citation, often using terms you are already familiar with, such as "premise," "assumption," and "conclusion." - Method-AP questions reward the knowledge you naturally gain from primary objectives that you had to practice anyway

Uncertain Use of Term or Concept

1. As an argument progresses, the author must use each term in a constant, coherent fashion. - Using a term in different ways is inherently confusion and undermines the integrity of the argument e.g. p.525 2. The term "value" is used in the example above in two different senses: first in a moral or ethical sense and then in a monetary sense - This shift in meaning undermines the author's position. 3. This type of answer choice appears more frequently as an incorrect answer than any other type - Examples of how this error of reasoning could be described in the answer e.g. p. 525

Internal contradiction

1. As discussed in the answer key to the previous chapter, an internal contradiction (also known as a self-contradiction) occurs when an author makes conflicting statements e.g. p. 511 Examples of how this error of reasoning can be describedp. 511 - 512

Weaken

1. Ask you to attack or undermine the author's argument - Require you to select the answer choice that undermines the author's argument as decisively as possible 2. In Third Family 3. The stimulus will contain an argument - Focus on the conclusion. Almost all Weaken answer choices impact the conclusion. - The information in the stimulus is suspect. - Weaken questions often yield strong prephrases. - The answer choices are accepted as given, even if they include "new" information. : Your task is to determine which answer choice - when taken as true - best attacks the argument in the stimulus

Evaluate the Argument

1. Ask you to consider the question, statistic, or piece of information that would best help determine the logical validity of the argument presented in the stimulus. - You must decide which answer choice will allow you to determine the logical validity of the argument - In other words, you must select the answer choice that decides whether the argument is good or bad 2. By this definition, there must be a flaw in each argument, and your question, if posed correctly, can reveal that flaw or eliminate the flaw. - Please note that you are not being asked to prove with finality whether the argument is good or bad - rather, you must simply ask the question that will best help analyze the validity of the argument - can be seen as a combination of a Strengthen question and a Weaken question : if you ask the best question, depending on the answer to the question the argument could be seen as strong or week 3. The information in the stimulus is suspect, so you should search for the reasoning error present 4. The answer choices are accepted as given, even if they include "new" information. - Your task is to determine which answer choice best helps determine the validity of the argument

Flaw in the Reasoning

1. Ask you to describe, in abstract terms, the error of reasoning committed by the author 2. exactly the same as Method of Reasoning questions with the important exception that the question stem indicates that the reasoning in the stimulus is flawed 3. When indicating that a flaw is present in the argument, the test makers will use phrases such as "the reasoning is flawed" and "the argument is vulnerable," or synonymous phrases. 4. To identify the right answer choice, carefully consider the reasoning used in the stimulus.

Cannot Be True

1. Ask you to identify the answer choice that cannot be true or is most weakened based on the information in the stimulus. 2. Accept the stimulus information and use only it to prove that one of the answer choices cannot occur : The correct answer choice will directly disagree with the stimulus or a consequence of the stimulus. 3. In practice, Cannot Be True questions are tricky because the concept of an answer choice being possibly true and therefore wrong is counterintuitive. - This type of question appears infrequently - When you encounter a Cannot Be True question, you must mentally prepare yourself to eliminate answers that could be true or that are possible, and select the one answer choice that cannot be true or that is impossible. 4. Fortunately, the stimuli in Cannot Be True questions rarely contain a conclusion 5. The gist of the question type is to show that an answer cannot follow, and this task tends to be expressed in three separate ways (1) Stating that the answer cannot be true or does not follow (2) Stating that the answer could be true EXCEPT - This construction is frequently used to convey the Cannot Be True concept. - If the four incorrect answers could be true, then the one remaining answer must be the opposite, or cannot be true (3) Stating that the answer choice must be false - The phrase "must be false" is functionally identical to "cannot be true." The use of this wording is just one more way for the test makers to present you with unusual phrasing

The Special Case of "Some are Not"

1. Because "some' is a reversible term, "some are not" statements are also reversible 2. However, students are warned to be careful when working with these statements (in fact, so many students make mistakes with this relationship that in teaching this method to students we start by saying that "some are not" is non-reversible as a way to simplify the introduction to this concept) e.g. diagram p. 435 - 436 3. Trouble can arise when we look at the relationship from the other side. - Correctly reversed, the relationship reads, "Some things that are not B are A." To most people this sounds strange and useless, nonetheless, that is the correct phrasing of the reversed statement. - But, most students will incorrectly reverse the statement to read "Some Bs are not As." that is not necessarily true! e.g. p. 436 **Reversibility Recognition Mini-Drill**

Formal Logic Components

1. Choosing Symbols to Represent Each Variable : Simply choose the letter or letters that, to YOU, best represent the element. e.g. p. 4262. 2. Conditional Reasoning Terms and Diagrams : Conditional indicators such as "if" and "only" yield exactly the same diagrams that were used in Sufficient and Necessary problems e.g. p. 427 - 428 (must review with the analysis) : Introduced by sufficient and necessary words such as: if...then, when, all, every, and only, where both elements are positive or both elements are negative. : You can, of course, take the contrapositive of this diagram and force both terms to be positive. : Introduced by "if and only if" or by situations where the author implies that the arrow goes "both ways," such as by adding "vice versa" after a conditional statement. : Double-arrow statements allow for only two possible outcomes : the two variables occur together, or neither of the two variables occurs : Introduced by conditional statements where exactly one of the terms is negative, or by statements using words such as "no" and "none" that imply the two variables cannot "go together" 3. New Terms and Diagrams - Relationships involving "Some" : The world "some" can be defined as "at least one, possibly all." : When you diagram statements involving "some," simply place a double-arrow with the letter "S" between the two elements :e.g. p. 429 : One of the most popular ways to introduce the idea that "some are not" is to use the phrase "not all," which is functionally equivalent to "some are not" : When diagraming statements involving some are not, simply place the word "some" between the two elements and negate the second element e.g. p. 429 : LSAT introduces the concept of some in a variety of ways including the following relationship indicators - Some - At least some - At least one - A few - A number - Several - Part of - A portion - Many - Relationships involving "Most" : The word "most" can be defined as "a majority, possibly all."--> again, take a careful look at that definition - it is different from what most people expect because most include the possibility of all.--> Thus, if I say "most of my friends graduated last week," using the definition above it could in fact be true that all of my friends graduated last week : When diagramming statements involving "most," simply place the letter "M" between the two elements and place an arrow under the "M" pointing at the second element e.g. p. 430 : Thus, if I say, "Most of my friends are not present," it could be true that "none" of my friends are present : When you diagram a statement involving "most are not," simply place the word "most" between the two elements, place an arrow under the "most" pointing at the second element, and negate the second element e.g. p. 430 : The LSAT introduces the concept of "most" in a variety ways, including the following relationship indicators - Most - A majority - More than half - Almost all - Usually - Typically - Likely - More often than not - Contrapositives : Some students ask if there is a contrapositive for "some" and "most" statements. The answer is NO. : Only the arrows statements like "all" have contrapositives; "some" and "most" do not because they do not necessarily encompass an entire group

Numbers and Percentages Errors

1. Consider that many errors in this category are committed when an author improperly equates a percentage with a definite quantity, or when an author uses quantity information to make a judgement about the percentage represented by that quantity 2. E.g. of how this error of reasoning can be described in an answer choice

Correct/Incorrect Answers to Method of Reasoning

1. Correct - select the answer choice that best describes the method used by the author to make the argument - simply abstract Must Be True questions: instead of identifying the facts of the argument, you must identify the logical organization of the argument

Correct/Incorrect Answers to Flaw in the Reasoning

1. Correct Answers - The correct answer will identify the error in the author's reasoning and then describe that error in general terms. 2. Incorrect answers -Beware of answers that describe a portion of the stimulus but fail to identify the error in the reasoning

Correct/Incorrect Answers to Weaken

1. Correct Answers - undermine the conclusion by showing that the conclusion fails to account for some element or possibility. - often shows that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises are true. e.g. p. 261 - 262 - attack assumptions made by the author. 2. Incorrect - Opposite answers: Do exactly opposite of what is needed : Strengthen the argument instead of weakening it - Shell Game : In Weaken questions, the Shell Game is usually used to attack a conclusion that is similar to, but slightly different from, the one presented in the stimulus. - Out of scope answers: these answers simply miss the point of the argument and raise issues that are either not related to the argument or tangential to the argument

Primary Objectives

1. Determine whether the stimulus contains an argument or if it is only a set of factual statements. 2. If the stimulus contains an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument. If the stimulus contains a fact set, examine each fact. 3. If the stimulus contains an argument, determine if the argument is strong or weak. 4. Read closely and know precisely what the author said. Do not generalize! 5. Carefully read and identify the question stem. Do not assume that certain words are automatically associated with certain question types. 6. Pre-phrase; after reading the question stem, take a moment to mentally formulate your answer to the question stem. 7. Always read each of the five answer choices. 8. Separate the answer choices into Contenders and Losers. After you complete this process, review the Contenders and decide which answer is the correct one. 9. If all five answer choices appear to be Losers, return to the stimulus and re-evaluate the argument.

Resolve the Paradox

1. Every Resolve the Paradox stimulus contains a discrepancy or seeming contradiction. --> You must find the answer choice that best resolves the situation

Diagramming Either/Or Statements

1. Everyday use outside of the LSAT of "either/or": "one or the other, but not both" 2. For the purposes of the test: "at least one of the two" 3. Since at least one of the terms must occur, if one fails to occur then the other must occur. But, if one occurs, it complicates the situation with the other 4. To further complicate the issue, occasionally our "outside" (but public domain) knowledge of the elements involved in the "either/or" construct allows us to make additional inferences. e.g. You are either in LA or San Francissco. - note that the makers of the LSAT could create a statement about two fictional or little-known cities. In this case, a diagram that attempts to reflect geographic knowledge would not apply since we cannot be sure if the cities overlap or not. p.217 - 219 Diagramming e.g. p. 216 John and Jack

Incorrect answer type - Resolve the Paradox

1. Explains only one side of the paradox : The correct answer must show how both sides coexist 2. Similarities and Differences : If the stimulus contains a paradox where two items are different, then an answer choice that explains why the two are similar cannot be correct. : Conversely, if the stimulus contains a paradox where two items are similar, then an answer choice that explains a difference between the two cannot be correct : In short, a similarity cannot explain a difference, and a difference cannot explain similarity Resolve the Paradox Question Problem Set p. 416

Formal Logic Defined

1. Formal Logic is simply a standard way of translating relationships into symbols and then making inferences from those symbolized relationships : And, because certain combinations always yield the same inference regardless of the underlying topic, a close study of the combinations that appear frequently on the test allows you to move quickly and confidently when attacking Formal Logic problems. 4. On the LSAT, the basis for Formal Logic relationships are terms such as "all," "none," "some," and "most. e.g. p. 426 - First, we examine a statement containing a Formal Logic - Second, swiftly translate the statement into a set of symbols that represents the concepts and relationships - Third, examine the symbolic notation and make additive inferences.

"Least" in question stem

1. Has similar effect to "Except" when it appears in a question stem.- When "least" appears in a question stem, you should treat it exactly the same as "except" (ONLY in question stem) Example p. 108 - 110 (Must read these pages)

Assumption (Necessary Assumption)

1. Identify an assumption of the author's argument - An assumption is simply an unstated premise of the argument 2. Can be described in terms of Conditional Reasoning : Conclusion (valid) ---> Assumption (true) 3. Some students ask about the difference b/w Must Be True question answers and Assumption question answers - The difference is one that can be described as "Before" vs "after" : Assumption answers contain statements that were used to make the conclusion : Must Be True answers contain statements that follow from the argument made in the stimulus : In both cases, however, there is a stringent requirement that must be met : Must Be True answers must be proven by the information in the stimulus : Assumption answers contain statements the author must believe in order for the conclusion to be valid.

How to strengthen an Argument

1. Identify the conclusion - this is what you are trying to strengthen : When evaluating an answer, ask yourself, "Would this answer choice assist the author in some way?" If so, you have the correct answer 2. Look for weaknesses in the argument : Close any gap or hole in the argument : Many Strengthen questions require students to find the missing link between a premise and the conclusion. - These missing links are assumptions made by the author, and bringing an assumption to light strengthens the argument because it validates part of the author's thinking. 3. Arguments that contain analogies or use surveys rely upon the validity of those analogies and surveys. - Answer choices that strengthen the analogy or survey, or establish their soundness, are usually correct

The Fact Test in Method of Reasoning

1. In a Method of Reasoning, the Fact Test works as follows: If an answer choice describe an event that did not occur in the stimulus, then that answer is incorrect. e.g. p. 480 2. Watch out for answers that are partially true - that is, answers that contain a description of something that happened in the argument but that also contain additional things that did not occur e.g. p. 481

Errors in the Use of Evidence

1. In a certain sense, all flawed arguments contain errors of evidence, that is they fail to use the information correctly 2. Several very specific errors of this type - General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion - Internal contradiction - Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization - Errors in Assessing the Force of Evidence

Conditional Linkage

1. In an effort to create complexity, the test makers often link two or more conditional statements. - If an identical condition is sufficient in one statement and necessary in another, the two can be linked to create a chain e.g. p. 210 2. Not all linkage is the same. The test makers can also link two sufficient conditions, or two necessary conditions. - These linkages yield different inferences (or none at all) e.g. problem set - must review - p. 210 -214

Circular Reasoning

1. In circular reasoning the author assumes as true what is supposed to be proved e.g. p. 517 2. Examples of how this error of reasoning can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 517

The Variance Test

1. In order to determine the correct answer choice on an Evaluate the Argument question, apply the Variance Test 2. The Variance Test consists of supplying two polar opposite responses to the question posed in the answer choice and then analyzing how the varying responses affect the conclusion in the stimulus. - If different responses produce different effects on the conclusion, then the answer choice is correct -If different responses do not produce different effects, then the answer choice is incorrect E.G. p. 611 : Of course, the answer choice does not have to be about percentage for the technique to work. The Variance test will work regardless of the nature of the answer choice. e.g. p. 611 - 613

The Unless Equation

1. In the case of "unless," "except," "until" and "without," a special two-step process called the Unless Equation is applied to the diagram. ** When "unless" and its synonyms appear in a sentence, there are often other negatives in the sentence. One significant benefit of the Unless Equation is that it removes these negatives, resulting in a representation that has all positive conditions. 2. Whatever term is modified by "unless" "except" "until or "without" becomes the necessary condition 3. The remaining term is negated and becomes the sufficient condition e.g. p. 194

Main Point - Fill in the Blank Question

1. In these questions, you are asked to fill in the conclusion of the argument. - In order to achieve this goal, you must read the stimulus for clues revealing the direction of the argument and the author's intent. - e.g. p. 168 2. Each sentence begins with a conclusion indicator that ultimately modifies the blank 3. By comparison, when other question types are presented, there are two significant differences - The indicator modifying the blank is often a premise indicator (such as "because" or "since") - The question stem contains language indicating you are completing a different task, such as strengthening the argument. **Examples analyzed - p. 169 - 170

Common Weakening Scenarios

1. Incomplete Information - the author fails to consider all of the possibilities or relies upon evidence that is incomplete - can be attacked by bringing up new possibilities or information 2. Improper Comparison: The author attempts to compare two or more items that are essentially different 3. Overly Broad Conclusion: the author draws a conclusion that is broader or more expansive than the premises support While these three scenarios are not the only ways an argument can be weak, they encompass a large proportion of the errors that appear in LSAT stimuli.

Justify the Conclusion (Sufficient Assumption)

1. Justify the Conclusion questions (which are sometimes called Sufficient Assumption questions) require you to select an answer choice that logically proves the conclusion of the argument. 2. To solve this question, apply the Justify Formula - Premises + Answer Choices = conclusion : If the answer choice is correct, the application of the Justify Formula will produce the given conclusion : If the answer choice is incorrect, the application of the Justify Formula will fail to produce the given conclusion e.g. p. 345

Errors in Assessing the Force of Evidence

1. Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is false : Just because no evidence proving a position has been introduced does not mean that the position is false e.g. p. 513 : Examples of how this error of reasoning can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 513 2. Lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove that position is true e.g. p. 513 : The lack of evidence against a position does not undeniably prove a position : Examples of how this error of reasoning can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 513 3. Some evidence against a position is taken to prove that the position is false : The introduction of evidence against a position only weakens the position; it does not necessarily prove the position false e.g. p. 514 : Example of how this error of reasoning can be described in an answer choice - p. 514 4. Some evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is true : The introduction of evidence for a position only provides support for the position; it does not prove the position to be undeniably true e.g. p. 514 : Example of how this error of reasoning can be described in an answer choice - p. 515

The Central Assumption of Basic Causal Conclusions

1. Most students assume that the LSAT makes basic assumptions that are similar to the real world; this is untrue and is a dangerous mistake to make. 2. When an LSAT speaker concludes that one occurrence definitely caused another, that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce the effect. - This assumption is extreme and far-reaching, and often leads to surprising answer choices that would appear incorrect unless you understand this assumption e.g. p. 293 - 294 - must review the analysis as well

Question Type Notes

1. Must Be True, Cannot Be True, and Resolve the Paradox questions are generally connected to stimuli that do not contain conclusions - Generally, Resolve the Paradox questions are easy to spot, because they contain a paradox or discrepancy - In addition, Must Be True questions appear far more frequently than Cannot Be True questions - Thus, if you encounter a stimulus without a conclusion and without a paradox, you are most likely about to see a Must Be True question Stem 2. Parallel Reasoning questions are a one-step extension of Method of Reasoning questions in that you must first identify the type of reasoning used and then parallel it. - Method of Reasoning and Parallel Reasoning questions both have a strong Must Be True element. 3. Main Point, Evaluate the Argument, and Cannot Be True appear the least frequently on the LSAT.

Principle Questions

1. Not a separate question type but are instead an "overlay" that appears in a variety of question types e.g. There are Strengthen Principle questions (Strengthen - PR), Justify Principle (Justify - PR), and Cannot Be True Principle questions (Cannot - PR), among others. 2. In a question stem, the key indicator that the Principle concept is present is the word "principle" or a synonym such as "proposition" or "precept"

Prephrasing in Method of Reasoning questions

1. Often students will have a firm grasp of the structure of the argument only to struggle when none of the answers match their prephrase. - This situation occurs because the test makers can use one or two words to describe entire sections of the stimulus, and you are rigorously tested on your knowledge of the mechanics of the argument and your ability to discern the references in the answer choice. 2. When prephrasing in Method of Reasoning questions, you may understand the details of the stimulus but not understand the structure of the argument. - Thus, each answer may sound implausible since they are related primarily to the logical organization of the argument - Therefore, you must think about the structure of the argument before examining the answer choices - However, do not expect to see your exact prephrase as the answer; there are simply too many variations on the way an argument can be described. - Many students are deceived by the description used by the test makers, and the only way to overcome this problem is to compare the description given in the answer choice to the stimulus

The Supporter/Defender Assumption model

1. On the LSAT, assumptions play one of two roles - the Supporter or the Defender 2. The Supporter role is the traditional linking role, where an assumption connects the pieces of the argument e.g. p. 371 : often connect "new" or "rogue" pieces of information in the argument : generally appears similar to the Justify the Conclusion answers : The supporter assumption, by definition, closes the hole by linking the elements together. 3. Defender assumptions protect the argument by eliminating ideas that could weaken the argument. : LSAT authors, as part of the LSAT world, function as if the points they raise and the conclusions they make have been well-considered and are airtight. : This fundamental truth of the LSAT has a dramatic impact when you consider the range of assumptions that must be made by an LSAT author. --> In order to believe the argument is "well-considered and airtight," an author must assume that every possible objection has been considered and rejected e.g. p. 371 - 372 Review the summary in p.372 - 373 Assumption Questions Examples p. 374 - 377

Flawed Assumption Questions

1. One special form of Assumption question involves a question stem that specifically notes that the argument is based on a flawed assumption e.g. p. 394 2. Assumption Flaw questions are relatively rare, and they require you to select the answer that identifies a flawed assumption made by the author - In this sense, they are classic Assumption questions, and the techniques we use for solving ASsumption questions - such as the Assumption Negation Technique - work perfectly on these questions 3. Because of the noted presence of the flaw in such cases, there is also an element of Flaw in the Reasoning questions present 4. However, whereas most Flaws in the Reasoning questions are somewhat abstract, Assumption Flaw questions tend to be less abstract and more concrete in addressing the statements in the stimulus because they directly address the statements made by the author - Additionally, because of the nature of assumptions, the correct answer to Assumption Flaw questions tend to be Supporter assumptions, which link together two or more elements of the argument 5. Note that within regular Flaw in the Reasoning questions there is already a need to identify flawed assumptions, in the form of certain answer choices which typically start with the following phrases (or something similar) - "presumes, without providing justification,..." - "takes for granted that ..." 6. When a Flaw in the Reasoning question answer choice appears with this wording, you are essentially completing a mini-flawed Assumption question, and you can use the Assumption Negation Technique if needed.

The Assumption Negation Technique

1. Only a few types of LSAT questions allow you to double-check your answer. - Assumption questions are one of those types, and you should use the Assumption Negation Technique to decide between Contenders or to confirm that the answer you have chosen is correct 2. The purpose of this technique is to take an Assumption question, and turn it into a Weaken question. - This technique can only be used on Assumption questions. 3. To apply the technique take the following steps - Logically negate the answer choices under consideration e.g. p. 378 - The negated answer choice that weakens the argument will be the correct answer : This will occur because of the conditional nature of an assumption. e.g. p. 378 4. The consequence of negating an assumption is that the validity of the conclusion is called into question - In other words, when you take away (negate) an assumption - a building block of the argument - it calls into question the integrity of the entire reasoning structure. - Accordingly, negating the answer choices turns an Assumption question into a Weaken question

Three Incorrect Answer Type of Strengthen Questions

1. Opposite Answers (weaken the argument) 2. Shell Game: In Strengthen questions, the Shell Game is usually used to support a conclusion that is similar to, but slightly different from, the one presented in the stimulus. 3. Out of scope answers: Miss the point of the argument and support issues that are either unrelated to the argument or tangential to the argument. These three answer types are not only ways an answer choice can be attractively incorrect, but they appear frequently enough that you should be familiar with each form. Strengthen Questions Analyzed - p. 327 - 330

Two question types most likely to appear with a Principle Designation

1. Parallel Principle Questions - In these questions, you must use the principle presented in the stimulus and then apply it to the situation in each answer choice (one principle applied to five situations) - Unlike the typical Parallel question, your job is not to match the direct reasoning used in the stimulus, but rather to find the answer that follows from the application of the principle or matches the application of the principle. - If an answer violates the principle, it is incorrect - Because many, if not all, of the principles in these stimuli are conditional, you will often be able to identify that reasoning and make a quick diagram. - If you cannot clearly identify the conditional nature of the principle, create an abstraction of the stimulus similar to one you would create in a regular Parallel Reasoning question. : This approach can be useful since it creates an accurate representation of the principle - The classification of these questions can sometimes be difficult for students since the relation of the stimulus to the answer choices has elements of both Must Be True and Parallel Reasoning questions (each answer often features a scenario and topic that is entirely different from that in the stimulus) - Remember, both Parallel REasoning and Must Be True questions are in the First Family, and they share many of the same characteristics - In the final analysis, when considering the answer choices, ask yourself "Does this answer match the attributes of the principle in the stimulus?" **e.g questions** p. 664 - 669 2. Strengthen/Justify Principle Questions - In these questions, each answer choice contains a principle that acts as an additional, broad premise that supports or proves the conclusion : Functionally, five different principles are applied to the situation in the stimulus. - While reading the stimulus, you must think in abstract terms and identify an underlying idea or belief that can be used to draw the conclusion in the stimulus. - Then, as you analyze the answer choices, tie this idea or belief to the structure of the author's argument and ask yourself "If this answer is true, does it support or prove the conclusion? **e.g. questions ** p.669 - 674

Resolve the Paradox Questions

1. Resolve the Paradox questions are generally easy to spot because of their distinctive stimuli: each stimulus presents a situation where two ideas or occurrences contradict each other. 2. Because most people are very good at recognizing these paradox scenarios, they usually know after reading the stimulus that a Resolve the Paradox question is coming up

The Rules of Reversibility

1. Reversibility in the context of Forma Logic means that the relationship between the two variables has exactly the same meaning regardless of which "side" of the relationship is the starting point of your analysis 2. Statements that are non-reversible have a single "direction," that is, the relationship between the two variable is not the same e.g. p. 434 - First, examine a relationship that is not reversible ** Mistaken Reversal** - Now, examine a reversible relationship **Some** 3. Reversible statements are easily identifiable because the relationship symbol is symmetrical and the arrow points in both directions - Non-reversible terms have arrows that point in only one direction e.g. p. 435 3. The beauty of reversible terms is that you can analyze the relationship from either "side" and still arrive at the same conclusion

General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion

1. Some authors misuse the information to such a degree that they fail to provide any information to support their conclusion or they provide information that is irrelevant to their conclusion e.g. p. 5102. Examples of how this error of reasoning can be described p. 511

Method - AP stimulus structure

1. Some problems feature two conclusions (one is the main conclusion, the other is a subsidiary conclusion), and often the stimulus includes two different viewpoints or the use of counter premises - Thus, the ability to identify argument parts using indicator words is important 2. A large number of Method - AP problems feature the traditional formation with the conclusion at the end of the argument. - If you do see the main conclusion at the end of a Method - AP problem, be prepared to answer a question about a part of the argument other than the conclusion - The test makers do this because they know students are very good at identifying the conclusion when it appears in the last sentence e.g. problem - must review - p. 488 - 492

The Difference Between Strengthen, Justify the Conclusion, and Assumption Questions

1. Strengthen questions ask you to support the argument in any way possible - Speaking in numerical terms, any answer choice that strengthens the argument, whether by 1% or by 100%, is correct 2. Justify the Conclusion questions ask you to strengthen the argument so powerfully that the conclusion is made logical - Compared to a Strengthen question, the answer to a Justify question must strengthen the conclusion so it is 100% proven - Anything less and the answer choice is incorrect. - Logically speaking, the correct answer to a Justify the Conclusion question is sufficient to prove the conclusion when added to the premises 3. Assumption questions ask you to identify a statement that the argument assumes or supposes. - An assumption is simply an unstated premise - what must be true in order for the argument to be true - An assumption can therefore be defined as something that is necessary for the argument to be true 4. Example analysis - p 322

Test Maker Tricks: Justify the Conclusion Questions

1. The PowerScore mechanistic Approach has proven so effective that in recent years the test makers have tried to create questions that evade a simple application of the technique. - These questions can still be solved by applying the Mechanistic approach (primarily because the theory that underlies that approach is same theory that is used in the formation of the questions), but it helps if you understand the tricks the test makers are using 2. There are two primary avenues of deception - Rewording Elements : In most Justify questions, elements are stated in nearly identical terms throughout the argument and the answers e.g. p. 356 : This similarity makes it easier to identify and connect elements. : Not surprisingly, then, one tool the test makers use is to describe an element in one way when it first appears, and another when it reappears e.g. p. 356 - must review - Distractor Elements : These distractor elements either provide background information for the argument or are not essential to the main argument structure, but, because they are in the stimulus, they can be confusing at first glance. e.g. p. 357 : Questions with distractor elements do not appear frequently, but when they do they can be challenging because they force you to assess which premises are essential to producing the conclusion, and which are not.

Assumptions and Causality

1. The central assumption of basic causality : When an LSAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another, that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce the effect 2. Thus, b/c in basic causal relationships the author always assumes that the stated cause is the only cause, Assumption answer choices tend to work exactly like Strengthen answer choices in arguments with causal reasoning. The correct answer to an Assumption question will normally fit one of the following categories - Eliminates an alternate cause for the stated effect - Shows that when the cause occurs, the effect occcurs - Shows that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur - Eliminates the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed - Shows that the data used to make the causal statement are accurate, or eliminates possible problems with the data e.g. p. 392 - 393

Correct Answer / Incorrect Answer to MBT

1. The correct answer can be : a paraphrase of part of the stimulus : a logical consequence of one or more parts of the stimulus. 2. Tricky incorrect answer choices - could possibly occur or are likely to occur, but are not certain to occur. - Exaggerated Answers : Take information from the stimulus and then stretch that information to make a broader statement that is not supported by the stimulus. e.g. p.140 : This type of answer is often paraphrased, creating a deadly combination where the language is similar enough to be attractive but different enough to be incorrect - "New" Information Answers 1) Examine the scope of the argument to make sure the "new" information does not fall within the sphere of a term or concept in the stimulus or a commonsense assumption 2) Examine the answer to make sure it is not the consequence of combining stimulus elements. - The Shell Game - The Opposite Answer - The Reverse Answer : Reversing the indicators (mostly quantity but can be something else) e.g. p.142

Why are Justify Questions Described in Terms of Sufficiency?

1. The correct answer to a Justify the Conclusion question is sufficient to prove the conclusion. - This is because Justify question will conform to the following relationship : Answer Choice (correct) ---> Conclusion (valid) 2. As we will see when looking at Justify question stems, the language used by the stem will convey that the answer choice is sufficient to prove the conclusion - Review about the question stem and conditional standpoint p. 346 : From a conditional point, the correct answer is sufficient to make the conclusion follow logically : This does not mean that the answer choice must contain a sufficient condition indicator or that the argument must be conditional in nature : The sufficiency model is a way of showing that the correct answer choice will add enough to the argument to make the conclusion follow

The Complete Table of Formal Logic Additive Inference Relationships

1. The following table lists all the major additive inference that can be drawn by combining two relationships. - A close examination of this table should help strengthen your understanding of the combinations that produce inferences. 2. The table does not attempt to identify which term is first or second; instead, the table simply lists whether the two terms in combination will yield an inference, and with what frequency e.g. p. 463 - 464 - must review - Several of the boxes in the Table are identical

Assumption Questions Question Stem

1. The stem uses the word "assumption," "presupposition." or some variation 2. The stem NEVER uses the word "if" or any other sufficient condition indicator : Because an assumption is a necessary part of the argument : The appearance of a sufficient condition indicator means that the question is either a Justify or Strengthen question. : The stem of an Assumption question will likely contain a necessary condition indicator such as "required" or "unless"

Stimulus Notes for Method of Reasoning

1. The stimulus for a Method of Reasoning question will contain an argument, and the argument can contain either valid or invalid reasoning. - As you read the stimulus, you should naturally make an assessment of the validity of the argument, and you can expect that many Method of Reasoning answer choices will reflect that assessment 2. Because recognizing argument structure is such an important part of attacking Method questions, you must watch for the presence of the premise and conclusion indicators discussed in Chapter Two. - These indicators will help you identify the structure of the argument and help you better understand the answer choices

Solving Parallel Reasoning questions

1. The structural basis of these questions forces you to compare the big-picture elements of the argument: the intent of the conclusion, force and use of the premises, the relationship of the premises and the conclusion, and the soundness of the argument. - Comparing these elements is like using an Abstract Fact Test - you must examine the general features of the arguments in the answer choice and match them to the argument in the stimulus 2. First, let us examine the elements of an argument that do not need to be paralleled in these questions - Topic of the stimulus : e.g. p. 549 - The order of presentation of the premises and conclusion in the stimulus : e.g. p. 549 3. Elements that must be paralleled, and how to use these elements to eliminate wrong answer choices - The Method of Reasoning : for example, causal reasoning or conditional reasoning - The validity of the argument - The Conclusion : Because your job is to parallel the argument, you must parallel the subcomponents, including the premises and conclusion : You can use this knowledge to attach specific answer choices - if an answer has a conclusion that does not "match" the conclusion in the stimulus, then the answer is incorrect. : When matching conclusions, you must match the certainty level or intent of the conclusion in the stimulus, not necessarily the specific wording of the conclusion e.g. p. 550 : First, answers that have identical wording to the conclusion are Contenders (assuming there is no other reason to block them out of contention). Identical wording for our purposes means answers where the controlling modifiers (such as "must," "could," "many," "some," "never," etc) e.g. p. 551 : Second, because there are many synonymous available for the test makers to use, do not eliminate answers just because the wording is not identical e.g. p. 551 : Third, remember that the English Language has many pairs of natural opposites, so the presence of a negative term in the stimulus is not grounds for dismissing the answer when the stimulus has positive language e.g. p. 552 : If the stimulus has a positive conclusion, then the presence of negative terms in the conclusion is not grounds for eliminating the answer; if the stimulus has a negative conclusion, the lack of a negative term in the conclusion is not grounds for eliminating the answer. - The premises : the same wording rules that were discussed in The Conclusion section apply to the premises : Matching premises is a step to take after you have checked the conclusion unless you notice that one (or more) of the premises has an unusual role in the argument. 5. Because the four components above must be paralleled in the correct answer choice, the test makers have an array of options for making an answer incorrect. - They can create answer choices that match several of the elements but not all of the elements, and working through each answer choice in traditional fashion can be a painstaking process - However, since each element must be matched, you can analyze and attack the answer choices by testing whether the answer choice under consideration matches certain elements in the stimulus. : If not, the answer is incorrect.

Survey Errors

1. The survey uses a biased sample e.g. p. 522 2. The survey questions are improperly constructed : If a survey question is confusing or misleading, the results of the poll can be inaccurate e.g. p. 523 3. Respondents to the survey given inaccurate response : people do not always tell the truth when responding to surveys. : Two classic questions that often elicit false answers are "What is your age" and "how much money do you make each year?" : If respondents give false answers to survey questions, the results of the survey are skewed and inaccurate eg. of how the errors of reasoning above can be described in the answer choices e.g. p. 523

Possible and Probable Causes vs Certain Causes

1. The test makers also use conclusions which are less than absolute, and instead of stating that the cause must have made a given effect happen, they instead state that the cause could have or probably made the effect happen. - In many cases, there is no operational difference between a causal conclusion of certainty and one of uncertainty. - However, there can be instances where the lower degree of certainty plays a role in the answer choices, and thus you should be aware of the exact language used to describe the causal relationship 2. Examples - Possible cause conclusion p.299 - probable cause conclusion p.299 3. These presentations remove the central assumption of causality and can have a cascade of effects. e.g. p. 299 - 300 4. Other typical methods of weakening causal arguments can also fall short in the face of a possible/probable cause conclusion e.g. p. 300 5. Essentially, once the author removes the certainty in the conclusion, some of the traditional methods of weakening a causal conclusion become less effective - In fact, to weaken a possible or probable causal conclusion, the most effective options for attack are usually to 1) show that the stated relationship is reversed, 2) show that a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal statement, and 3) Raise a possible third cause that could have caused both elements

New Information and the Idea Umbrella - Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported

1. There are four classifications of information that can be used to prove that an answer choice is correct. 2. Four classifications - The actual statements of the stimulus - Commonsense assumptions - Consequences of the statements presented in the stimulus: Two or more pieces of information in the stimulus can combine to logically produce what appears to be a "new" idea, but in fact is not. e.g. p. 133 - Information under the "umbrella" of the statements in the stimulus : Certain concepts act as an umbrella, and as such, they automatically imply other things. e.g. a discussion of "all animals" thereby includes cats, zebras, lizards, etc. 3. Each of the above classifications meets the Fact Test, because each refers directly to the facts of the stimulus or to immediate consequences of those facts.

Justify the Conclusion - Fill in the Blank Questions

1. There are two telltale signs that can help you to identify a Justify FIB question p.357 - 358 - The blank in the stimulus is typically preceded by a premise indicator: often "because," or "since" - The wording of the question stem indicates that you are expected to justify the conclusion: Because these are Justify questions, every question stem must contain the same type of "argument proving" languages seen in all regular Justify questions .e.g. p. 358 Ultimately, these questions operate in the same way as regular Justify questions; the same approaches are still effective, so the presence of a blank should not cause concern.

Fill in the Blank Questions

1. These questions are one of several main question types - Main Point, Must Be True/ Most Strongly Supported, Strengthen, etc. 2. The placement of the blank in the stimulus is not random - the blank is typically at the very end of the stimulus - There is an indicator at the start of the last sentence or just before the blank to help you recognize what you must supply, and then the question stem specifies the exact nature of your task

Relativity Flaw

1. This error occurs when information about a relative relationship - one involving a comparison - is used to draw an absolute conclusion, or when a relative conclusion is drawn from absolute information - Virtually anything that allows for comparison would qualify e.g. p. 528 - 529 2. There are many ways to set up arguments so that comparisons are valid, and thus the presence of comparison does not automatically mean that the argument is flawed (and, in fact, many arguments featuring comparisons are valid). - Each case must be evaluated on its individual merits.

Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization

1. This error takes a small number of instances and treats those instances as if they support a broad, sweeping conclusion e.g. p. 512 2. This answer appears most frequently as an incorrect answer in Flaw questions, but as with any of the errors described in this chapter, occasionally it appears as a correct answer. 2. Examples of how this error of reasoning is described in LSAT answer choices

Sunk Cost/Concorde Fallacy

1. This unusually named error of reasoning is often seen in the world of finance and economics - In simple terms, the fallacy occurs when an argument is made that continuing the project or making an additional investment is justified on the basis of past monies or efforts already invested e.g. p. 530 2. The "Sunk cost" portion of the name comes the idea that the investments already made are basically costs that cannot be recovered without further effort; in other words, they have already been "sunk" into the project" - The "Concorde" portion is a reference to the joint British-French project to create supersonic jet, not surprisingly named the Concorde. - This was a massive boondoggle for taxpayers, and the program was continually justified on the basic of monies already spend (and because neither country wanted to lose face, a different sort of investment) - Note that there can be instances where further investment is warranted, even if it were to come at a loss. e.g. p. 530

Negating Conditional Statements

1. To negate a conditional statement you must show that the necessary condition is not in fact neccessary e.g. p. 382 2. It is also worth noting that the logical negation of a conditional statement is different from the Mistaken Negation of that statement - The Mistaken Negation is a failed inference that follows from negating both sides of the statement. - A logical negation negates just the necessary condition in an attempt to produce the opposite of the statement e.g. p. 382 **Statement Negation Drill** p. 383

Weakening Conditional Reasoning

1. To weaken a conditional conclusion, attack the necessary condition by showing that the necessary condition does not need to occur in order for the sufficient condition to occur. - This can be achieved by presenting a counterexample or by presenting information that shows that the sufficient condition can occur without the necessary condition 2. Immediately look for an answer that attacks the idea that the necessary condition is required. e.g. problems - must review - p. 271 - 285

The Answer Choices

1. Uniqueness Rule of Answer Choices: Every correct answer has a unique logical quality that meets the criteria in the question stem. Every incorrect answer has the opposite logical quality e.g. p. 115

"Except" in Question Stems

1. When "except" is placed in a question, it negates the logical quality of the answer choice you seek -e.g. if a question asks you to weaken the argument, the one correct answer weakens the argument and the other four answers do not weaken the argument. If "except" is added to the question stem, the stem is turned around and instead of the correct answer weakening the argument, the four incorrect answers weaken the argument. 2. Many students, upon encountering "except" in a question stem, make the mistake of assuming that "except" charges you with seeking the polar opposite. - this is incorrect e.g. Weaken except =/ Strengthen - While this could include a strengthening answer choice, it could also include an answer choice that has no effect on the argument. Examples p. 108

Words to Watch For: "Judgement"

1. When "judgement" (and sometimes its close relative, "action") appears in a question stem, it typically turns a Must - PR question into Parallel - PR question - This occurs because the judgment refers to a conclusion drawn in a certain situation, and these situations are usually different in each answer choices, which is the same as what occurs in a Parallel question. 2. Despite the change in question stem type brought about by the presence of the word "judgement," most students are not affected because Must Be True and Parallel Reasoning questions are both in the First Family, and are thus closely related. - Operationally you must still identify the answer choice that follows directly from the statements in the stimulus (although in a Parallel question, those facts are typically appplied to a new situation)

Address the Facts - Resolve the Paradox

1. When attempting to resolve the paradox in the stimulus, you must address the facts of the situation. - Many incorrect answers will try to lure you with reasonable solutions that do not quite meet the stated facts - These answers are incorrect. The correct answer must conform to the specifics of the stimulus otherwise how could it resolve or explain the situation? 2. The importance of this point cannot be overstated, because many of the most attractive wrong answers in Resolve questions are based on ideas that are similar to the ones in the stimulus, but differ in some small, factual way. e.g. p. 413 - 415

Than Either

1. When the phrase "than either" is used, the term "either" translates to "both" e.g. Desmond likes Biology better than either Chemistry or Physics

Errors of Conditional Reasoning

1. You should familiarize yourself with several mistakes LSAT authors make when using conditional reasoning, including Mistaken Negation and Mistaken Reversal - Also, Flaw in the Reasoning questions will ask you to describe those mistakes in logical terms 2. When describing a Mistaken Negation or a Mistaken Reversal, the test makers must focus on the error common to both: confusing the sufficient condition with the necessary condition. - As such, here are examples of how these errors of reasoning can be described in the answer choices p. 518 3. Note that the authors can either mistake a necessary condition for a sufficient condition or mistake a sufficient condition for a necessary condition - Confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition e.g. p. 518 - Confuses a sufficient condition for a necessary condition - e.g. p. 518 4. It is interesting to note the frequency with which the words "sufficient" (or its synonym "assured") or "necessary (or its synonym "required") are used when analyzing the answer choices used to describe conditional reasoning. : This occurs because those words perfectly capture the idea and it is difficult to avoid using at least one of those words when describing conditionality. - This is a huge advantage for you: if you identify a stimulus with conditional reasoning and are asked a Flaw question, you can quickly scan the answers for the one answer that contains "sufficient," "necessary," or both

Correct Answer to MSS

1. correct answer choice no longer has to pass the Fact Test 2. Right answer = must, at the very least, be the one that makes the most sense based on the stimulus. - the correct answer choice seems extremely likely, but is not provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. 3. use the same approach that you use with Must Be True but just be aware that the correct answer needs to pass a lower bar than in Must questions.

How to Weaken an Argument

1. the key to weakening an LSAT argument is to attack the conclusion (But not necessarily destroy it) 2. Attacking premises is rarely used because when a premise is attacked, the answer choice is easy to spot : In practice, almost all correct LSAT Weaken question answers leave the premises untouched 3. Conclusions are most likely to be attacked, but the correct answer choice will not simply contradict the conclusion : Instead, the correct answer will undermine the conclusion by showing that the conclusion fails to account for some element or possibility. : In this sense, the correct answer often shows that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises are true. e.g. p. 261 - 262 : Answers that weaken the argument's conclusion will attack assumptions made by the author. 4. The stimuli for weaken questions contain errors of assumption. - This makes sense because the easiest argument to weaken is one that already has a flaw. - Typically the author will fail to consider other possibilities or leave out a key piece of information : In this sense, the author assumes that these elements do not exist when he or she makes the conclusion, and if you see a gap or hole in the argument immediately consider that the correct answer might attack this hole 5. As you consider possible answers, always look for the one that attacks the way the author arrived at the conclusion. Do not worry about the premises and instead focus on the effect the answer has on the conclusion. - So, we know that we must first focus on the conclusion and how the author arrived at the conclusion - The second key to weakening arguments is to personalize the argument

The position taken above presupposes which one of the following?

Assumption

How to attack a basic causal conclusion

2. Attacking a basic cause and effect relationship in Weaken questions almost always consists of performing one of the following tasks - Find an alternate cause for the stated effect - Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur : often appears in the form of counterexample - Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur : This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. - Show that the stated relationship is reversed - Show that a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal statement.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

Assumption

Two Notable Stimulus Scenarios - Cannot Be True

Although Cannot Be True questions are not associated with any particular type of stimulus scenario, two concepts we have discussed appear with some frequency: numbers and percentages, and conditional relationships - Both areas can cause confusion 1. Numbers and Percentages - Numbers and percentages can be confusing when they appear on the LSAT, and the test makers know how to exploit certain preconceived notions that students bring with them to the test - In Cannot Be True questions, the stimulus will often supply enough information for you to determine that certain outcomes must occur e.g. p. 630 2. Conditional Statements - Many different scenarios can occur in Cannot Be True questions featuring conditional statements, except the following : The sufficient condition occurs, and the necessary condition does not occur - Thus, when a conditional statement is made in a Cannot Be True question stimulus, you should actively seek the answer that matches the scenario above - Incorrect answers often play upon the possibility that the necessary condition occurs but the sufficient condition does not occur. - Those scenarios could occur and are thus incorrect e.g. questions - must review - p.630 - 632

Time Shift Errors

Although this error has a rather futuristic name, the mistake involves assuming that conditions will remain constant over time and that what was the case in the past will be the case in the present or future. e.g. p. 528

Which one of the following is an assumption required the argument above?

Assumption

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

Assumption

The conclusion cited does not follow unless

Assumption

How to attack a basic causal conclusion

Attacking a basic cause and effect relationship in Weaken questions almost always consists of performing one of the following tasks - Find an alternate cause for the stated effect - Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur : often appears in the form of counterexample - Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur : This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. - Show that the stated relationship is reversed - Show that a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal statement.

The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that

Flawed Assumption

The argument employs which one of the following reasoning techniques?

Method of Reasoning

Clarification of which one of the following issues would be most important to an evaluation of the skeptics' position?

Evaluate the Argument

Order that a student must look at the elements that must match in Parallel Reasoning question

Examine the element is like a waterfall and that everything will happen very quickly. This is the rough order of their usefulness 1. Match the Method of Reasoning 2. Match the Conclusion : On occasion, all five conclusions in the answer choices will be identical to that in the stimulus - that is not a problem. It just means that the other elements must be used to knock out the wrong answer 3. Match the Premises : The more complex the argument structure in the stimulus, the more likely you will have to match the premises to arrive at the correct answer. : The less complex the argument, the more likely that matching the conclusion will be effective 4. Match the Validity of the Argument : Always make sure to eliminate any answer choice that does not match the logical force (Valid or invalid) of the argument. - This test rarely eliminates all four answers, but it can often eliminate one or two answer choices Problems Analyzed p. 553

Incorrect Answers in Point at Issue Questions

Finding the correct answer in most Point at Issue questions requires you to examine the conclusion made by each speaker. - But, because Point at Issue questions require you to select a specific type of statement, several unique forms of incorrect answers tend to appear in these problems 1. Ethical vs Factual Situations - When a stimulus addresses an issue that is ethical in nature, answer choices that are factual in nature cannot be true e.g. p. 643 - The reverse is also true: when a stimulus addresses an issue that is factual in nature, answer choices that are ethical in nature cannot be true. - However, disagreements over facts occur infrequently because they are generally easy for students to spot e.g. p. 643 2. Dual Agreement or Dual Disagreement - Remember, just because both speakers discuss the issue does not mean that it is an issue about which the two would disagree. 3. The View of One Speaker is Unknown - In these instances, the view of the speaker is unknown because the speaker's comments did not address the issue in the answer choice. - Since the correct answer must contain a point of disagreement, these "one unknown" answers are always incorrect

The reasoning in the argument is fallacious because the argument

Flaw in the Reasoning

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Flaw in the Reasoning

The reasoning in the mayor's argument is flawed, because this argument

Flaw in the Reasoning

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument in the author's reasoning?

Flaw in the Reasoning

The argument is flawed because it takes for granted that

Flawed Assumption

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

Thus, it seems quite likely that in the near future ______________

Main Point - Fill in the blank

hence, when we consider all of the relevant evidence, it is clear that _________________

Main Point, Fill in the blank

Three Quirks of Assumption Question Answer choices

Over the years, certain recurring traits have appeared in Assumption answer choices. - Recognizing these quirks may help you eliminate wrong answers or more quickly identify the correct answer at crunch time. 1. Watch for answers stating with the phrase "at least one" or "at least some" : For some reason, when an Assumption answer choice has started with either of the above constructions, the chances have proven to be unusually high that the answer would be correct. : however, as with all advice regarding such specific trends in tests, if you spot an answer with that construction, you should not simply assume the answer is correct; instead, use the proper negation ("none") and check the answer with the Assumption Negation Technique for confirmation. - As always, if the negated version of an answer to an Assumption question does not weaken the argument in stimulus, you should quickly move on to the other answer choices. 2. Avoid answers that claim an idea was the most important consideration for the author. : These answers typically use a construction such as "the primary purpose," "the top priority," or "the main factor." : In every Assumption question these answers have been wrong. : And, unless, the author specifically discusses the prioritization of ideas in the stimulus, these answers will continue to be wrong because an author can always claim that the idea under discussion was very important but not necessarily the most important idea. 3. Watch for the use of "not" or negatives in assumption answer choices. : Because most students are conditioned to think of assumptions as positive connecting elements, the appearance of a negative in an Assumption answer choice often causes the answer to be classified as a Loser. : Do not rule out a negative answer choice just because you are used to seeing assumptions as a positive part of the argument : Defender answer choices, one role an assumption play is to eliminate ideas that could attack the argument : To do so, Defender answer choices frequently contain negative terms such as "no," "not," and "never." : One benefit of this negative language is that Defender answer choices can usually be negated quite easily. **The test makers expect you to routinely bypass answers with negative language.**

Parallel Flaw

Parallel Flaw Questions - The stimulus in a Parallel Flaw question contains invalid reasoning : However, the test makers play a game with the question stems for these questions, and the stem will either mention a flaw or not mention a flaw - If the question stem states there is flawed reasoning present, there is; if the stem does not state there is flawed reasoning present, the reasoning is either valid or invalid : Fortunately, similar to Flaw in the Reasoning questions, Parallel Flaw questions use many of the common forms of erroneous reasoning e.g. p. 548

The structure of the reasoning in the argument above is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

Parallel Reasoning Questions

Which one of the following Principles most helps to justify the reasoning above?

Strengthen - PR

The Value of Knowing Common Errors of Reasoning

The test makers, being human, tend to repeat certain forms when creating stimuli and answer choices, and you can gain a demonstrable advantage by learning the forms most often used by the test-makers Applying the knowledge you acquire here will take two avenues 1. Identifying errors of reasoning made in the stimulus : If you learn the mistakes that are often made by authors, then you will be able to quickly identify the error in the argument and accelerate through the answer choices to find the correct answer 2. Identifying answer choices that describe a common error of reasoning - In Flaw in the Reasoning questions, the test makers tend to use certain types of answer again and again - Depending on the reasoning used in the stimulus, these answers can describe the correct answer, but more often than not they are used as "stock" wrong answers e.g. p. 510

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the argument presented above?

Weaken

Which one of the following, if true, would most call into question the researchers' hypothesis?

Weaken

Which one of the following, if true, would undermine the physicist's argument?

Weaken