Logical Reasoning Question Types and Arg. Structures.

Alternate Cause

1. Proposing an Alternate Cause for An Observed Effect The teacher believed students restless because it was raining during recess, couldn't run around. However, the principal thought it was because the math class was boring. Describe Answer Choices "provides an alternative explanation for the changes in Children's dating" 2. Explaining a correlation in the opposite direction people who have insomnia nap more. Or maybe its because they nap during the day that they have insomnia. "Offering an alternate Explanation for the correlation cited"

Main Point - Fill in the Blank

A fill in the blank question which calls for you to fill in the conclusion. The blank will begin with a conclusion indicator "Therefore,_______"

Strengthen Except

All the answer choices will strengthen. The correct answer will be either irrelevant or weaken. DOESNT HAVE TO WEAKEN, just can't support. Its important to note that an answer choice that strengthens even 1% is incorrect. This means popular fallacies or weak logic would technically be cbt if supporting the correct argument. Correct answers will always either be COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT or WEAKEN Be on the look out for new terms that pop up in the answer choices that signify an irrelevant/out of scope answer "Each of the following, if true, provides additional support for the dermatologists diagnosis EXCEPT"

Weaken EXCEPT

All the choices will weaken The correct answer will either be irrelevant or strengthen. "Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT"

Causal conclusions

Alternate cause! assumed to not be in play Same cause, same effect -> str No cause no effect -> str Same cause, different effect - > weak different cause, same effect - > weak

Rejecting Alternatives

An argument that lists a number of options and rejects all but one of those options. For her vacation in January, Sheila could go to norway, florida or hawaii. But wait, its cold in norway, hawaii is smelly. She must go to florida.

Making an Analogy

Applying a principle from one situation into another situation. Analogies tend to be subtle and buried within text. EX) Just as Fords reputation for producing a solid product helped it succeed, our new clothing line must build a similar reputation for it to succeed. EX) "Push on one end of this pliable spending balloon and an equally expensive bulb shows up elsewhere" -this seems like it could just be dressed up economic lingo. but its actually colorful figurative language. and its Buried within 12 lines of text Describe answer choice "Making an analogy to characterizer interrelationships"

Appealing to a definition

Arguing something by saying, well the definition of x word says this, therefore... You say im immoral for not washing my clothes. but i say that immorality means doing something benefits myself and doesnt benefit others. obviosuly, not washing my clothes doesnt benefit myself and neither benefits or does not benefit others, therefore you're wrong about me being immoral!

Applying a General Principle

Argument that cites a general rule (an all statement). Then, it states the sufficient condition, with the necessary (the general rule) following. All students at morris high school study biology during sophomore year. Cuntface is a sophomore at morris, she must study biology

Disagree

Characterization A statement about which the two speakers have conflicting opinions. Reading two opposing views in a stimulus to find exactly what they disagree about. "Ralph and Ed disagree about the truth of which of the following" "Which one of the following most accurately characterizes a point of disagreement between the critic and the writers?" "Which one of the following most characterizes the point at issue?" "The dialogue provides the MOST SUPPORT for the claim that N and H disagree over whether" -note that this prompt is asking for an inference of their disagreement, not necessarily their explicitly statements. this question functions differently (LSAC) Strategy: 1. Identify premises and conclusions of each argument. Do not incorporate additional knowledge. 2. Focus on second speakers method of rebuttal. Is he attacking a premise, assumption, method of argument or conclusion? 3. Paraphrase point of contention and underline key words that are repeated by both authors in conclusions 4. Look at answer choices. Do both speakers have an opinion on the matter? Each party has to actually have a view for it to be correct 2. Do they actually disagree about it? Make sure they don't agree and use the answer choice as a premise. Correct answers Main conclusion commonly NOT correct answer choice, rather LSAT relies on distilling the conclusion into different words or underlining the support both parties use to attack or prove the conclusion. Disagreement about the truth of a premise or conclusion "Defining a substance as addictive justifies government restriction" Disagreement about the type of evidence a speaker uses (strategy of argumentation) "change in economic prosperity of lowest income bracket relative to highest is accurately measured by comparing their percentage changes" Disagreement about causes for an observedeffect Incorrect answers 1. the speakers will not both have a view point. the wrong answer choice may be the unchallenged premise of only one speaker or not mentioned by either speaker 2. They could both agree with the statement. Check to make sure they don't both use this wrong answer choice as a premise to support different conclusions

Parallel Flaw

Characterization Choose an argument that commits the same fallacy that is committed in the stimulus Prompt "The flawed/questionable reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which of the following?" "Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning above" Strategy: 1. Identify conclusions and premises 2. Characterize the flaw If conditionals Diagram the argument, look for invalid forms of arg (Converse, inverse) Diagram answer choices that seem to commit same fallacy. Same number of terms and modality! If no conditions Look for the fallacy in the argument, paraphrase fallacy "motto" Is it one of the common fallacies? No? Then come up with a motto that matches the structure and go with that answer. Common incorrect answers Valid arguments arguments in which the subject matter is the same or similar to the stimulus, they try to trick you by having a sucker choice with parallel subject matter that looks right. Commit a different fallacy

Describe: Two Person

Characterization Duo Perspective Describe how someone responds to another's claim or argument. "Lee responds to Jones by" X's argument does which of the following?" Strategy: 1. Use indicator words to isolate and underline conclusion of first speaker 2. Use indicator words to isolate underline conclusion of second speaker (if relevant to question) 3. Ask yourself, what does the second person attack? assumption? Premise? Conclusion? Method of argument? 4. If unsure whether a claim is assumption,premise/conclusion, look for indicator words where the author makes an abstract claim about his own argument "I disagree because your evidence is inconclusive"/ "You neglect to mention" Correct answer indicates whether the other is attacking assumption, conclusion or evidence. *Watch to see if responder B misinterprets or misconstrues Speaker A Assumptions - an assumption is unstated by the initial argument. If the second argument proposes information that contradicts an unstated implication, then its attacking the assumption. Ask yourself, what is the proponents argument attacking? can you underline exactly which premise thats being attacked or is it implied? Usually, the introduction of new evidence tends (BUT NOT ALWAYS) to indicate an assumption is being challenged Look for abstract wording argument uses, clueing you into what he's attacking. EX) "you neglect to mention", "You assume" Ex) Michelango's first layer of paint has been painted on. we should remove it But many painters paint over their first coat The first author assumes michelango didnt put on more than one coat. The other dude is pointing out its totally common to put on more layers of paint and michel probably did so, challenging the first authors assumption. EX)Attacking the accuracy of scientific results -> attacking the scientists assumption that its accurate EX) To get to mars, Woolly mammoths would've had to travel from austin to mars. However, no bones were found on the trail. -Mammoths had incredible life spans and could make the trek -> this attacks the unstated assumption that mammoths would've died on the trail. AA conclusion undermined Premise weakened/disproven. Correct answers about which part of arg is attacked are generally short and abstract wording. General Notes: Indicator Words important! Keep track of that show which part of the passage the other is attacking. They usually are the first sentence. You're wrong... EX) "Evidence is inconclusive" this would mean the conclusion is not being attacked, its gonna be either evidence or assumption. Any answers relating to the conclusion being false should be eliminated. EX) "you neglect to mention", "You assume" - assumptions

Parallel

Characterization The answer choice will have the same logical structure as the stimulus Remember: When it doesnt specify flaw, it could or could not be flawed. Prompts "which one of the following is most closely parallel to the reasoning in arg" "The reasoning in passage is most similar to the pattern of reasoning in the argument above?" "Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited by the argument above" -note how this prompt has TWO flaws Powerscore ranking of priority *First, scan the problem for Points of Seperation, the most likely candidates to disqualify Incorrect answers. Look for strange phrases in the conclusion. "would make" "cant quite" 1.The method of reasoning is the same in abstract terms. Same conditional form, cause and effect form etc. 1.5 Same validity status 2. The same conclusion, accounting for modality, quantifer and logical structure. the presence of a negation may or may not matter For example, if the stimulus conclusion is in conditional form then thats different from a conclusion with certain form. 3. the premises The same # of premises, # of terms, validity status, same modality. The premises must have the same function. Some premises are Additional premises which are non essential, some are simply irrelevant. Some premises are forceful and relevant. 4.Same operation performed to arrive at conclusion. If premises are combined to make a contrapositive, this must be copied. Two premises build on each other to reach one conclusion. If two independent premises support a single conclusion, copied. one independent and one additional, copied etc. BUT DOESNT HAVE TO BE IN SAME ORDER SAME OPERATIONS - if you need to change one of the premises to a contrapositive to achieve that exact conclusion, then you need to perform the same operation in the answer, two answer choices will be exactly the same except one requires the same operation requires in stim. Consider reading through the stimulus and circling key words (and, or, key terms). Then go through answer choices and knock out the ones that are invalid or have the wrong key terms. Quick way to get rid of wrong answers Test of Abstraction: Summarize the ACTION of the arguer. Are they defending, rejecting, accepting, excusing, qualifying etc. "someone has done it before, so it can be done again": "Ive experienced it before, so i know what it feels like" "A rule: someone else checks it better, so always follow do that." "a search didnt find it, so it must not exist" Answer choice: an examination of a books index didnt find x, the whole book failed to refer to x "the other two didnt work so the final third will" -leave the articles general so the mottos can fit into real arguments -Specify the verbs, pull the verbs from the stimulus -Remember: the answer choice will paraphrase the stimulus' action in the parallel answer. An opinion will be matched by the same idea in the correct answer. SAME Blue Print strategy: 1. identify conclusion and relevant premises Are there conditional statements? If yes, 1. Identify number of terms 2. Identify modality of terms (Does modality change or stay consistent?) 3. Conjunctions or Disjunctions? 4. Valid or invalid? ( a parallel question can have an invalid argument without becoming a "PF" question) 5. If valid, Contrapostive, valid affirmation or transitive? Proceed by ruling out the invalid answers. If valid with quantifiers, rule out answers whose like terms is necessary in All statement -> invalid. 6. If invalid, whats the fallacy? Proceed by ruling out valid answers. Converse/Inverse? Make sure modality changes confuse what is valid and what looks like a fallacy. If no conditional, MOTTO 1.Ask how the author supports conclusion, coming up with a short motto. "But theres a better way" 2.If the conclusion differs in scope or modality than the stimulus conclusion, eliminate Principal Flaw Question Sub Type 1.The stimulus will propose a principle, which becomes our "motto" for the answers. 2. Isolate the principle, dont get confused by irrelevant details. Incorrect Answer 1.Invalid arguments when stimulus is valid 2.valid arguments when stimulus is invalid 3.Arguments in which the subject matter is same or similar to stimulus tend to be incorrect 4.Scope, modality and quantification differ from stimulus. Intent of conclusion differs 5. Partially true, but one little thing is incorrect 5.Watch for arguments which change modality/quantification! Ex. A->B Argument: B-> Might/Some A. On first glance, one might misread the "Might" statement in the stimulus as an All statement, rendering the argument fallacy of the converse and invalid. Actually, this is valid, we can derive some conclusion from fallacy of converse (CBT).

Flaw Question

Characterization A description of the fallacy committed in the stimulus. Abstract wording. Prompt "Which of the following most accuaretly describes an error in the arguments reasoning?" "The reasoning is flawed because" "The reasoning above is questionable because" "The editorials argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it" Correct answer The fallacy in the stimulus Abstract wording Describes reasoning that is actually fallacious (some answers are valid) Does not over state the argument is one of the prevalent fallacies "Takes for granted" = take as true = premise or "Presumes without justification" = a premise Incorrect Answers 1. Fallacies not in stimulus 2.Characterizations that miss important aspects of a fallacy 3.Describe an aspect of a fallacy incorrectly 4.Describe a part of the argument that is not flawed 5. Overstate the function of the argument. (Saying something relies soley on emotional premises when only a majority of premises are emotional) 6. LSAT will usually dangle out the hint of a another fallacy (dropping the world "only if") and make you think conditional fallacy, but really they commit a different fallacy. Blueprint Strategy: Read the stimulus and locate the conclusion and relevant premises. Underline the conclusion. Do you recognize a fallacy? If yes, paraphrase and look for answer choice that matches. The same flaw can be described in a variety of ways. If no, Ask why conclusion doesnt follow, look at modality and scope. Test the remaining answer choices 1. describes actual flaw? 2. Present in stimulus?

Agree

Characterization A statement that both speakers agree about. Very uncommon question type, may not even appear or only a single question. "If both speakers are sincere, it can be concluded they agree that" "Both speakers statements strongly support the claim that both of them would agree with which one of the following?" "On the basis of their statements, the speakers are committed to agreeing about which one" BP Strategy: 1. Identify premises and conclusions of both passages 2. Do both speakers have an opinion on the statement? 3. Are these opinions in agreement? Is it too strong or exclusive that would lead one party to object? Common correct answers a premise each argument relies on to reach differing conclusions. agreement on the truth of a conclusion even with different premises. Agreement that a phenomenon is occurring even if they disagree about the cause or extent There will sometimes be more than one opinion that is shared between speakers, only one will be presented in answer choice Sometimes, speakers agree explicitly on main conclusion, but the answer choice will be semantically different. Common incorrect Statements which one or both of the speakers do not necessarily have an opinion Statements that are too strong and which one of the speakers could potentially disagree with -watch out for strong statements and their indicator words "the only" "the cause"

Role Question

Characterization Family An accurate characterization of the role that a specific statement plays in the stimulus Described in abstract terms Strategy 1. Identify conclusion and premises using key words. 2. Try to characterize the statements relationship to argument in abstract terms ( is it a specific part of arg or separate from arg?) Prompt "Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the passage by the claim that non-marine animals have scales?" "The assertion that insects do not literally breathe figures in the argument in which way?" Common Correct a premise not supported by anything else in the argument "It is a premise offered in support of the claim" A subsidiary conclusion that is supported and is used to support the main conclusion -will try to trick you with two conclusions "it is an intermediate conclusion for which one claim is offered as support and is used in turn to support the main conclusion" The main conclusion - sometimes theyll hide the main conclusion at the top, the first line. Background info that is not part of argument "it is cited as an established finding for which the argument proposes an explanation" A claim that the argument is intended to refute _usually comes before sentences that begin with However or But An objection to a position "an example/analogy intended to show that a premise/conclusion of X's argument is false" -make sure you known whether the example is attacking the premise or conclusion of X's arg. Common incorrect Characterizations of other parts of the argument not mentioned in prompt Half right, half wrong Characterizations that relate to a conclusion not expressed in the stimulus (too strong) Characterizations that could not be part of the stimulus (an assumption) "It is an assumption on which the argument depends" Since the assumption was never explicitly stated, it cant be the specific claim in the prompt.

Describe Questions

Characterization Family Basically a must be true question Abstracting away from the subject of the stimulus to figure out the structure or underlying method of argument. One perspective. Correct answer is an accurate description of the reasoning used in the stimulus. Prompts "Which of the following describes the method /Techniques/strategies of reasoning." "The argument proceeds by" "X's argument does which of the following?" "the author attempts to persuade by doing all of the following EXCEPT" Strategy: Identify the conclusion of the passage. (use indicators words.) Prefer answer choices that closely match prevalent argument types. Only use info in the stimulus to prove the correct. Any choice that mischaracterizes or describes an element that does not occur cant be correct. Process of elimination, comparing the contenders to the stimulus. If an element of the contender is not in the stimulus, appear out of order incorrect Focus on indicator words which signify a shift in agreement: These transition into the AUTHORS evidence/conclusion. Incorrect Answers Argument forms not in the stim Sucker choice: Answers that cite the correct prevalent structure, but use it incorrectly - check the verbs Answers with too narrow a scope - only describe part of an argument, miss an important quality. Answers that are exaggerated Opposite answers, they will throw in a negation Reverse answer Keep track of specific groups the conclusion could only apply too. EX) "For people who want to keep their values, ....." Answers which dont correspond with the authors attitude. Answers that talk about scientific evidence when none occurred. Answers with information not found in the arg. (sometimes an answer will be half correct but have one statement that disqualifies entire answer) answers that are partially true but not all the way correct If comparing between two answers, look for the answer with the least amount of parts to it, thus least amount of things that had to have happened. Ask, why is this one not the correct answer? 3. Evaluation "which of the following is the most adequate evaluation of the logical force of the critics response" Tricky describe question. They are asking for an evaluation or analysis of the argumentative strategy. Usually there is a flaw present you are supposed to see. Keep in mind, sometimes the argument you are tasked to describe is flawed.

Main point questions

Characterization family Describe what the Authors main conclusion is. Prompts "Which of the following is the main point of the argument" "Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument" Strategy 1. Locate authors conclusion -look for indicator words regarding author's point of disagreement ("however", "but", yet,) 2. Notate premises with a P -use premise indicator words to separate conclusion from its premises 3. Underline Subsidiary Conclusion and mark with SC 4. Check to see if the main conclusion implies something else Common Correct Answers All MUST BE MBT + stand alone + authors final point Conclusion/Inference Expressions of the authors attitude. Prescriptive statements (should, ought) when paired with an authors attitude are preferred. Ex) this is what they say. However, it should be this other way. Explanations take priority over simply restating the phenomenon being explained. Ex) i have the squirts. its cause of the burrito. - some people are fooled into thinking the conclusion is that you have squirts, supported by the premise its cause the burrito. The correct answer choice will say "the reason i have the squirts is because i ate a burrito" Statements about how a subject matter is misleading -> if someone professed x is true, they would be misled/ inviting a mistaken belief The answer must be supported by premises in arg and not support anything by itself (subsidiary conclusion) Key words for conclusions and premises important, but should serve as "approximate indicators", the corresponding answer must still be tested to make sure not a subsidiary conclusion. Rhetorical questions at the beginning or ending of a passage are big conclusion indicators. Answer the question and thats the conclusion. EX) can anyone really deny abortion is wrong? After all, killing is wrong and abortion is killing. MP: No one can deny abortion is wrong. OR is someone were to deny abortion as wrong, theyd be mistaken etc Rare Main point questions have conditional statements that lead to a logical conclusion. The correct answer is the logical conclusion just like a MBT. If you think of Main Point like MBT, this becomes clear. Common Structures: * The conclusion will be the first sentence with no indicator. * The conclusion will be smack in the middle of the passage * MC-SC. The SC is the last sentence to trip you up. Incorrect Answers: CBF - pay attention to modality, if the actual conclusion says something is likely to happen, a wrong answer may say that it is definitely going to happen, making it cbf Subsidiary Conclusion that supports the Authors actual conclusion. unstated assumptions Answers that over state the argument. Too strong. Answers that neglect an explanation when there is one present, merely restating the phenomenon answers concluded a study is false/authors conclusion is right after the author attacked the methodology of the study - all we know is the study's methods unreliable, not whether its false or the authors conclusion is right - absence of evidence found in main point Answers that are merely a repetition of premises rather than the ultimate conclusion. These answers will be explicitly stated as true and support the main point, but are too narrow and do not encompass the entire passage (a premise) Answers that state something extra which can be inferred from the argument but not merely the paraphrasing or direct inference of the arguments conclusion

LSAT test maker common argument construction "Sc-MC"

Conclusion on top, but a subsidiary conclusion is the final sentence with a neat little conclusion indicator. Dont fall into the trap of thinking the SC is the MC Also, be looking for an assumption that ensures the SC leads to the MC

Politician headers

Councilmember Council chair mayor politician identifies someone who is going to persuade or advocate at the least Be suspect of poor reasoing

Assessment

Evaluating a certain thing with subjective attribute

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. Example, in a Strengthen question, the correct answer will Strengthen and the incorrect answers will NOT Strengthen. Example, in a Strengthen-EXCEPT, the correct answer will NOT Strengthen and the incorrect answers will Strengthen. No two answers that are logically identical can be correct. Imagine if you saw A) A->B B) Not B -> Not A C)B->A D) Not A -> Not B E) A -> Not B Since a and b are both in the answer choices and are logically equivalent and since no two answers can ever be correct at the same time, you can deduce that they are both incorrect. The same can be said for C and D. E MUST BE correct.

PowerScore Categorization of Question "Families"

Family 1 : prove. Includes almost all questions types: MBT, main point, describe, disagree/agree, parallel In this family, you use the stimulus to prove the answer choice correct. Whatever is in stimulus is accepted as true. The answer choices are "under suspicion" Family 2: help str, assumptions, resolve use the answer choices to enhance or prove the stimulus. Usually a flaw in the stim or huge gap in logic. Family 3: weaken in its own category. use answer choices to negate the stimulus family 4: Disprove, MBF in its own class Use the stimulus to disprove answer choices

Principle Questions

Four types that are offshoots of the other question categories. (1) Soft MBT - presents a principle and asks which facts fit the principle Principle questions - state a general principle and ask you to apply it to facts. Must fit the principle and be true. Are you using the stimulus to support and answer choice? soft MBT "Which of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principles stated by the moralist" Quick Tip: If a conditional relationship is given, eliminate all scenarios that attempt to prove a conclusion we don't have a sufficient condition for. For example, stimulus: all greedy acts are moral. Eliminate all answer choices that attempt to conclude an act is immoral. We only know what is sufficient to say something is moral, not immoral. 1. Does the principle even apply to this situation? 2. Does the principle justify the reasons use to support the conclusion reached in the situation? 3. LSAC Recommends checking ALL Answer choices (2)Strengthen - > gives an argument and asks which principle justifies the conclusion LSAC comments that strategies for both types the same Have to notice which direction the support is going. Are you supporting the stimulus' conclusion? Strengthen. Are you using the stimulus to support and answer choice? soft MBT

Explain Except

Identify the one answer choice that doesnt explain the phenomenon Correct answer can sometimes be fallacious reasoning, because then it wouldnt apply. Correct answer explains a different phenomenon, or a slight variation on the original.

Implication - soft MBT

Indicator words - most , best. Very strongly supported by stimulus, doesn't absolutely need to be true. Summary of the stimulus "Which is most strongly supported" Strategy: Usually, these are fact sets 1. Circle probability/quantity indicators (the scope). 2. Weak indicators -> Weak answer choice. Strong -> weak or strong answer 3. Eliminate wrong answer choices 4. Paraphrased or combination only answer choices. WEAK ANSWER CHOICES BEST FOR SUMMARIZATIONS. (Some, in some cases, sometimes, few) Principle questions - state a general principle and ask you to apply it to facts. Must fit the principle and be true. "Which of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principles stated by the moralist" If a conditional relationship is given, eliminate all scenarios that attempt to prove a conclusion we don't have a sufficient condition for. For example, stimulus: all greedy acts are moral. Eliminate all answer choices that attempt to conclude an act is immoral. We only know what is sufficient to say something is moral, not immoral. Fill in the last sentence questions. "Which of the following best completes the argument?" Correct Combination or paraphrase paraphrase will use the same language as the stimulus. Information under the umbrella. A strong statement, such as "all animals eat lettuce" includes lizards, cats etc. Thus, an answer choice with "a cat eats lettuce" could appear even if cat not specifically mentioned. Quick Tip: When a stim proposes view points of other people exclusively, any answer choice that makes an assertion without referencing the proponent of view point is false! Incorrect answers: Fallacy of converse, inverse, CBT/CBF Outside the scope - new info that is not the combination or paraphrase of stim statements Exaggerated, Too strong (On average. the only way. etc) Causes or explanations for stimulus Hypothesis about future or what would happen if a variable changed Shell game - changes the answer just enough to be incorrect, but looks very attractive. (adding plurality or exclusivity) Opposite answer- an answer that the stimulus would negate or prove factually incorrect The Reverse Answer- Reversing a statement so it means something different, but looks attractive EX)Many people have some type of security system. AC: Some people have many types of security system. Answers that require a fact not stated in order to reach an inference - it feels like a combination but really you just inserted a premise Rarely diagram these types of questions! 10% of time. If no diagram We are most likely looking for a weak answer choice that summarizes the stimulus

Comparative conclusion

Indicators: better than, worse than, more efficient, "er"

Resolve EXCEPT

MBF variation of resolve questions Strategy: Correct Makes the paradox worse Completely irrelevant

MBF

Must be false. An answer that can not be true given the information in the stimulus. "If the statements above are true, which of the following must be false" "Each of the following could be true except" "Which of the following contradicts" Correct answer definitively proven false by the formal logic in the stimulus. Diagram Negate the conditional statement in the stimulus. A->B A-> not B If the negated form of an answer choice is in the stimulus, this is your answer! Be careful with conjunctions (Negate and switch!) NonDiagram Correct answer contradicts a crucial piece of information stated as true in the stimulus. Incorrect: CBT, MBT, CBF!! IF an answer choice contains new information not in stimulus, and its not a combination of two pieces of info, if its out of scope -> CBT because nothing explicitly stating MBF. Therefore, OUTSIDE OF SCOPE ALWAYS incorrect Remember: fallacies of the inverse of converse CBT! That means, fallacies are incorrect just like in MBT!

MBT

Must be true Assume all statements in stimulus is true, the answer choice is inferred. "If all above are true, which must be true" "Properly inferred, deduced, logically follow" Strategy: 1. Circle all quantifiers/probability indicators 2. Anticipate strength of AC. Weak statements support weak AC. Strong statements can still support weak AC or stronger ones. 3. Eliminate wrong answer choices 4. Paraphrase or combination Diagram about 50% of the time Quick Tip: Classic Combo When there is conditional reasoning combined with a MBT question stem, look for an answer choice with valid affirmation or Contrapositive. Anticipate transitive arguments, take the stimulus to the most extreme logical conclusion or its contrapositive. NonDiagram Involves studies and scientific research Correct Answers: Proven by stimulus 1. A paraphrase of a part of stimulus OR 2. A logical consequence of a combination of two or more statements in statement (inferred) 3. Information under the idea umbrella. A strong statement, such as "all animals eat lettuce" includes lizards, cats etc. Thus, an answer choice with "a cat eats lettuce" could appear even if cat not specifically mentioned Quick Tip: When a stim proposes view points of other people exclusively, any answer choice that makes an assertion without referencing the proponent of view point is false! Incorrect answers could be false Watch out for incorrect answers: Fallacy of converse, inverse, CBT/CBF Outside the scope - new info that is not the combination or paraphrase of stim statements Exaggerated, Too strong (On average. the only way. etc) Causes or explanations for stimulus Hypothesis about future or what would happen if a variable changed Shell game - changes the answer just enough to be incorrect, but looks very attractive. (adding plurality or exclusivity) Opposite answer- an answer that the stimulus would negate or prove factually incorrect The Reverse Answer- Reversing a statement so it means something different, but looks attractive EX)Many people have some type of security system. AC: Some people have many types of security system. Answers that require a fact not stated in order to reach an inference - it feels like a combination but really you just inserted a premise

Necessary Assumptions

Operation Common question type, about 10% Valid Conclusion-> True Assumption A necessary assumption must be true in order for an arguments conclusion to EVER be properly inferred. Without the assumption, the argument cant be valid, but the assumption doesn't guarantee the conclusion will follow/its not sufficient. A minimalist answer If a necessary assumption of an argument is denied or taken away, the argument is rendered invalid -> right answer. Valid argument -> necessary assumption Indicator words: Needs, requires, rely, depend, pressupose, made, makes Prompt: "Which of the following is an assumption/pressupposition on which the argument depends" "Which of the following is an assumption required by the economist's argument" "which of the following must the television station assume/pressupposes in order to conclude that the plan will meet its purpose" "which of the following is an assumption made/makes by the argument" Ex) Jack and will race. Jack is faster than will. Jack will win, Necessary assumptions: Jack shows up. The earth doesnt explode. Jack doesnt break his leg. jack doesnt die before the race. -Note that Jack is a better flat foot runner or has a full stomach are not absolutely necessary. Strategy: 1. Identify conclusion and relevant premises Circle rogue terms in conclusion. Circle new terms in premises that arent in conclusion. Anticipate assumptions needed. look for common fallcies: equivocation, alternate cause, exclusivity, answer choices address these Distinguish p and MC. Find something that closes this gap. Test for it by negating the answer choice. If you negate the answer choice and then use it to attack the argument, if the argument falls apart completely then this is correct. Incorrect answers allow the conclusion CBT. Negate the answer choice that may be correct to test it. IF CONDITIONAL anticipate missing relationship or its contrapositive Two Types with conditional link chains-> supply the missing premise (much like a suf question) Find an answer that connects the stimulus to conclusion like sufficient. If you are presented with just a single conditional conclusion with no link chain. Looking for a defender that rules out situations which affirm the sufficient and deny the necessary. Look for defenders that affirm necessary condition is truly necessary Find an answer choice that rules out the alternate cause or establishes the necessary condition is truly required. IF CAUSAL Use the same techniques you would use in a strengthen question. Same cause, same effect etc. eliminate alt cause. eliminate reversibility. - important to note: authors who site studies to reach their conclusion assume the study and its data are accurate. -author assumes the causal relationship is the only cause for the effect and the cause will always produce an effect wrong answers: answers which talk about the cause of the cause or the effect of the effect IF NO DIAGRAM look for common fallcies: equivocation, alternate cause, exclusivity Distinguish p and MC. Find something that closes this gap. Test for it by negating Equivocation -Look for new terms/ideas that popped up in the conclusion. Odds are, the term in the conclusion is being equivocated with premises. Supporters Answer choices that connect a term in premises to a new or rogue pieces of information in the conclusion. Ex) all men can vote. thus, socrates can vote. Supporting assumption: socrates was a man Defender Showing that possible avenues of attacking the argument cannot occur. Thus, the assumption that the argument is perfectly valid is maintained. EX) Politician: vote for me and ill give you $100 Assumption: the politician is not lying EX)causal relationship - ruling out alternative causes _if a stimulus has flaws, expect a supporter role that strengthens if a stimulus doesnt have flaws, expect a defender that eliminates a bizarre alternate cause or eliminate undermining arguments Correct: If a necessary assumption of an argument is denied or taken away, the argument is rendered invalid -> right answer. Only has to be CBF, but could be MBF Something that must be true for conclusion to follow tend to be weaker than what is required to prove the conclusion DO NOT rule out an answer simply because it is sufficient. There are answers that are both sufficient AND necessary. No diagram an answer that addresses the equivocation or exclusivity. Adhere to all of the parts of the stimulus, not outside the scope. Common Correct: Often take this form: X did not happen prefer weak answer choices answers starting with "at least one, or a least some" relatively weak and narrow, a minimalist answer Incorrect: Answer choices that have extraneous information, or are anything but absolutely necessary. Answer choices which stress "primary purpose" "main factor" "top priority" Or other extremes Answer choices that strengthen the argument, but if false would not destroy the argument. Strong answers (does, must, always, only, all) Statements that are outside the scope Inferences of the argument Harder questions will have multiple that would be right if just one or two words were changed to more accurately depict the subject matter, make to sure to understand structure of argument

Justify/Sufficient Assumption

Operation Common question type. 18% A sufficient assumption guarantees the conclusion of an argument is properly inferred. If you were to add the answer choice as a premise, it would absolutely guarantee the conclusion follows. Sufficient assumption -> valid argument Indicator words: 1. Will sometimes contain sufficient indicator : "if" enable, allow 2. The stem WIL NEVER lessen degree of certainty with "most" -> if it says "most justifies/enables" ->its a strengthen questions Prompts: "Which of the following, if assumed, would allow/enable the conclusion above to be properly drawn?" "The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which of the following is assumed" - note the structure of the question stem, it is If X, then valid? Strategy: Identify Premises and Main Conclusion Anticipate a logical bridge between the two Always anticipate the form of the answer IF DIAGRAM Insert the missing premise that would guarantee the conclusion is true. These often take the form of transitive arguments with a link missing. EX) A->B C: A->C the missing sufficient assumption: B->C EX) B->C C: A->C Missing sufficient assumption: A->B EX) A->B C: B happens to X A: A happens to X IF NOT DIAGRAM. Will propose a situation and a conclusion that seem unrelated. Pin the premise on the conclusion. Say that the premise implies the conclusion and thats your answer. Bridge the gap between premise and conclusion EX) The rodriguez family will go to the water park. So, africa will explode. - although this seems ridiculous, if we add the sufficient premise: if the rodriguez family goes to the water park, then africa will explode, the conclusion must follow if premises are in fact true EX) look out for prompts that rely on the possibility a study is valid. A->B only if the study is valid. THe correct answer will usually affirm that the study actually is valid to ensure conclusion follows *Argument with Subsidiary conclusion that supports Main Conclusion: close the gap! The correct answer literally just said the SC leads to the MC and bam. BE ON THE LOOK OUT FOR SUB CONC's in SUF questions! Powerscore Method: 1. New or rogue elements did not appear in any premises, but appeared in conclusion. Must be present or paraphrased in answer choice. 2. Elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one premise are normally not correct 3. Elements that appear in the premise but not the conclusion usually are in the correct. Quick Tip: Watch out for paraphrasing between rogue elements and their reappearance in the answer choice 2. Look out for distractor elements which are nonessential to complete the argument. Imagine if they threw an additional conditional statement which leads to no conclusion Fill in the Blank Common variant of justify question where you must insert a premise into an argument. Preceded by premise indicator. Common correct: Strong answer choices Take the form of conditional statements the contrapositive of the correct premise A conditional that jumps over another premise to connect to the conclusion EX) a->B B->C A-E Missing link: B->E (Jumps the B->C premise to lead right to conclusion, Still works!) Common incorrect: Necessary assumptions weak answers relative to the premise and conclusion which would not GUARANTEE the conclusion (may, might, some, can) Answers that strengthen the conclusion but dont guarantee its true irrelevant or outside the scope A premise or conclusion thats already stated in argument, or its contrapositive

Explain

Operation Identify information that helps explain the unexpected phenomenon Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the statistical claim above> Which of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the behavior of the vervet monkeys described above? Strategy: Pay attention to the prompt. Dont go explaining something that they dont refer you to explain. anticipate the type of information that could explain it "why is it the case that this is happening" Summarize the answer in own words, look for that in answer choice Correct Explains, corrects the fallacy, fills in the assumption Incorrect Information that denies the existence of the phenomenon Information that strengthens or exacerbates the phenomenon Something that explains a different situation irrelevant information Information that explains a different part of the arg not referenced by prompt

Resolve

Operation Resolve the inconsistency or paradox presented in the stimulus. Typically do not have a conclusion Resolve, reconcile, But, however, paradoxically, surprisingly, puzzle, problem "Which one of the following ,if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above" "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the medical specialists two claims" Common paradox: Low success rate, but considered the best percentage to amount fallacies Strategy: Identify the two parts that are paradoxical On one hand X on the other hand Y Anticipate the type of information that would resolve the discrepancy, Watch for percentage and number issues additional information that doesnt nullify either side the correct answer will resolve the paradox and allow both sides to remain true quick tip: If a stimulus contains two items that are paradoxically similar, an answer choice describing their differences cant be correct. Difference cannot explain similarity. Vice versa: if a stimulus contains two items that are different, an answer choice describing their similarities cant be correct . similarity cannot explain difference. Correct: Select the cause of the paradox that allows both sides to be true best resolves discrepancy takes assumptions into account Incorrect: Information that invalidates the paradox statements that exacerbate the discrepancy irrelevant information Shell game, answer choice will fix a slightly different paradox than the one described Inferences of the paradox- stuff that is true and can be inferred but doesnt actually explain WHY Answers which asserts one hand is false or improbable Only explains why one side occurs and not why both occur

Weaken Causal Conclusion

Operation "Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weakens the commentators argument?" "Which of the following, if true, would most call into question the soundness of the literary critic's advice" Strategies: Identify Premise and underline conclusion- make sure to diagram these IF CAUSAL CONCLUSION Ways to weaken causal 1. Alternate Cause- something else causes the effect, weakening the causal claim. (Sometimes the alt cause is in the stimulus) 2. Similar or SAME cases that do not follow the same pattern Showcases another situation involving the same variables without the same results Cause without effect - showing that the claimed cause occurred else where and did not produce the same effect Effect without cause - Showing that a claimed effect was achieved despite the absence of the claimed cause IF NOT CAUSAL CONC List the premises, conclusion Determine the argument type Find the assumption in the argument- the answer choice will exploit this assumption If cant find assumption, identify argument strategy: Comparison/Analogy - attack the comparison correct New information provides evidence against the conclusion drawn in the stimulus Incorrect weak answer choices Choices that actually strengthen irrelevant and outside the scope Doesnt correspond to the causal conclusion- uses equivocating terms to mistake the conclusion EX) Alternate causes that use definitive claims when the conc is relative

Strengthen

Operation - 2nd most common question type Accept new answer choices as true and use them to help the stimulus at least 1%. Indicator words: strengthen, support, helps, MOST justifies "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens/justifies the argument" Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conservationist's argument" -note that the stem will always say the answer choices "if True" Strategy: Will almost always have a conclusion, Identify conclusions Often faulty reasoning present Determine whether conclusions asserts causal relationship or some type of correlation IF CAUSAL CONCLUSION Ways to strengthen 1. Eliminate alternate cause- an alternate cause that would undermine the conclusion is eliminated (sometimes the alt cause is in the stimulus) 2. Similar or SAME case Same cause and same effect -similar situation with same cause producing same effect 3. Similar or SAME case No cause and No effect absence of the claimed cause was not followed by the claimed effect 4. Eliminates possibility situation is reversed. (usually done by stating the cause occurred temporally before the effect, excluding the possibility that the effect actually was the cause) 5. Show the data used to make a causal claim is accurate or eliminate problems with the data Same case and variables, but the cause is removed and thus the effect is removed. Correct: answers about causal conclusions don't need to prove or disprove the argument as valid or invalid they just need to support or weaken the presence of causation NOT CAUSAL CONCLUSION Important to note that any answer choice that strengthens even 1% can be right. 1. Identify conclusion and premises 1B. List all premises in correct order 2. look for flaws or assumptions in the argument 3. close the gap by verifying this assumption or fixes the flaw 3.5 Arguments with analogies or surveys rely on the validity of that data. find answer choices which strengthen the analogy or survey 4. Eliminate irrelevant/weaken answer choices If cant find assumption, go with independent grounds for accepting the conclusion as true Ex) better diet leads less methane production from meat industry cows better diet also increases meat production - independent evidence for accepting initial proposal as true. If cant find assumption, identify argument strategy: Comparison/Analogy - str the comparison correct new information that provides additional support for the conclusion by 1% or 100% fixes the flaw fills in the assumption Rules out third variables or points to common example establishes validity or soundness of study or argument method Incorrect irrelevant to conclusion or outside the scope Statements that weaken the conclusion Shell game- Statements that attack a different conclusion than conclusion in stimulus but seems like the same one Statements that are too weak in certain contexts, but not as a general rule

Crux/Evaluation

Operation - very rare, .20 per lsat Identify a crucial piece of information where the truth or falsity if both considered at some time would effect validity of stimulus "The answer to which one of the following questions would most help in evaluating the argument/truth of the conclusion" "In evaluating Yang's argument it would be most helpful to know whether" Strategies: Identify and underline conclusion and premises Determine whether conclusion is causal relationship IF CAUSAL CONCLUSION Diagram the cause and effect Anticipate an answer choice that would help evaluate the purported cause IF NOT CAUSAL CONNECTION find the assumption, ask a question about it Anticipate an answer choice whose truth or falsity will either strengthen or weaken the argument Incorrect Irrelevant to the conclusion or outside the scope of the argument Relevant to the argument, but do not directly affect the conclusion

Strengthen: Principle

Provides a situation and asks you to come up with a principle that justifies situation "Which of the following principles, if established, most helps justify/draw the conclusion sharon's position" the situation above most closely conforms to which of the following principle/generalization These prompts look like soft mbt, but remember the answers are supporting the stimulus not the other way around Strategy: 1. Find the conclusion 2. find the SUPPORT for the conclusion Come up with a motto that sums up the support as it relates the the conclusion Correct Encompasses the ENTIRE conclusion Incorrect Answers that only explain part of the conclusion but not the whole thing

Use a Counter Example

Refuting a claim by providing an example that is contrary to the claim. It is widely believed that mammals cannot fly. Since bats are mammals and bats can fly, this belief is clearly mistaken. Describe Answer Choices "

Flawed Assumption

Similar to a flaw question, but specifically asks for the flawed assumption "the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that" "the argument is flawed because it takes for granted that" Correct answer tends to close the gap Note that flaw questions with answer choices that begin with "takes for granted/presumes" are mini flaw assumptions The assumption negation technique can be applied to these questions types Note that in necessary answer choices, we have to watch out for stems like "presumes, without jusitication..." or "takes for granted that...", as these signals the assumption made by the stimulus is flawed.

Advertisement:

Something is being sold, look for flawed reasoning. every single lsat question ever with this has faulty reasoning

Fill in the blank operation

Strengthening or weakening evidence inserted into passage

conclusion: recommendation

The argument provides support for a recommendation the assumption is that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks

Sufficient in the middle

The park closes when the sun goes down the when introduces a sufficient condition in the middle of the sentence which is confusing because its not first.

Flaw: EXCEPT

The stimulus will be riddled with fallacies. You are asked which fallacy did NOT appear. EX) a study is done on the top salmon baits. It uses only five baits, only pro anglers, only white water trout and only in a nice stream. It concludes the bait is the best bait anywhere for any fish. Ex) Person X hired the top people, and invested alot of money. You're lying when you say he wanted to ruin the show. Strategy: 1. Use process of elimination. Like in example 1, you can underline each time they make a specific type of sampling fallacy. Go through each answer choice and see if you can underline it in the passage 2. Is it a flaw? Correct Answers Will describe a flaw not committed Describe a strategy used in the argument that is NOT a flaw Incorrect answers Flaws found in the argument

A stimulus doesnt have a conclusion

This is fact set. It is most likely a MBT/~MBT. Second most likely its a resolve/explain. 3rd likely its a MBF Probably wont be anything other type

Flaw: Misinterpretation

Two parties speaking, one party will misinterpret a key word or assumption. You are asked which part of the argument they misinterpreted or what they wrongly interpret. "Bills answer to Susy can be best explained on the assumption that he has misinterpreted susy's remark to mean that" Strategy: 1. Locate who is speaking and what title/office they hold 2.

Appealing to an Authority

Using a qualified individual or organization to back up your claim The students disagreed about whether the correct answer choice for the calculus problem was X or Y. However, Professor LickFace, a noted mathematician, says it is X, so it must be X. Describe Answer Choices "Appealing to an authority to substantiate an assertion" "Relying on the authority of an expert to support a premise" Make sure the authority is substantiating the correct part of the argument!

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Usually used with two perspectives. Using a line of reasoning to draw an absurd conclusion. My friend claimed I could not talk to the hot girl at the party because he saw her first. I said if that were true, the only person who could ever talk to the opposite sex would be the doctor who delivered her. Describe Answer Choices "A statement is argued to be false by showing taking it as true leads to implausible consequences"

Powerscore method

Warns against reading question then stimulus. Says to always read stimulus first. 1. Determine whether the stimulus contains an argument or fact set (75% are args.) If fact set usually MBT 2. if argument, identify conclusion. 3. if argument, strong or weak? 4. read closely and know precisely what author said, do not generalize or miss a single term 5. identify question stem 6. prephase and anticpate the answer 7. always read each answer choice 8. separate into contenders and losers with X and Os 9. return to stim when in doubt

Conclusion: prediction

Watch for temporal fallacy Assuming time will not change the situation

Weaken General and Conditional Reasoning

Weakening an argument with conditional reasoning. The stimulus will have a conclusion. Classic Combo: Weaken with conditional reasoning. Strategy: 1 Underline conclusion 2 Diagram/understand the statements 3. Anticipate an answer choice which affirms the sufficient and negates the necessary. attack the necessary by showing that the necessary does not need to occur in order for the sufficient to occur . A->Not P Anticipate: A->P Anticipate an answer choice which allows P to possibly follow from A. *Note you do not need to definitely prove the above is true, just that is possible. Incorrect: An answer choice will weaken a different conclusion. Potentially the inverse or converse of the conditional statement in the stimulus. Imagine if an answer choice said: Not P-> Not A this would be weakening Not P-> A instead of actual conclusion presented above. IF NOT CONDITIONAL General Weaken List the premises, underline conclusion Determine the argument type Find the assumption in the argument- the answer choice will exploit this assumption. Look for equivocations between terms in the stimulus and conclusion. When new ideas pop up in the conclusion, an assumption has been made. If cant find assumption, identify argument strategy: Comparison/Analogy - attack the comparison Do not hyper focus on the conclusion. Consider the premises. Be on the look out for qualifications within the argument. Make sure they are acknowledged in the answer choice. Therefore, when they become aware of their senses, they flourish the above conclusion qualified by the conditional Always be suspect of studies/research findings. Answer choices will directly refute the evidence the findings are based on, sometimes the method the evidence was collected. Snythesiacs report they taste colors. Therefore new senses Answer: They cant articulate themselves -> attacks method of self report in this key demographic, super hard question Incorrect Answers which actually strengthen answers with no impact on the argument Shell game - answers which actually weaken a different conclusion than the one in the stimulus, but it looks very similar. Ex) conclusion: we will prevent threat of suffocation to wildlife Answer: But the new measures will poison them! -> doesnt weaken because doesn't address "preventing threat of suffocation"

additional premise

a premise added to the argument that supports the conclusion, but is sometimes non-essential to the conclusion

Counter Premise

aka adversatives, bring up points of opposition or comparison/contrast. Gives the author a chance to directly attack arguments of opponents. introduced by Counter premise indicators

if the above statements are true, all of the following statements must be true EXCEPT

asking for which CBF

Fill in the blank - Premise

fill in a premise. The indicator will let you know its a premise you want "Since,____" "Because,____"

Questions with If but only if

immediately assume you will be tested on this inference or negating this inference. Look for CP A<-->B Not A<-->Not B

LSAT test maker common arg type "The Juke"

raise a viewpoint in a favorable light , then introduce a counter premise and disagree with it SOME PEOPLE CLAIM its sunny in autum in texas, HOWEVER that doesnt make up for the fat people. so texas sucks