Logical Reasoning Question types

Must Be True

Correct answer can be a paraphrase of part of the stimulus, or can be a logical consequence of one or more parts of the stimulus Frequently, when the LSAT test writers introduce a Must Be True question using the word "support," the stimulus will consist of statements that might be in need of support, and there will be strengthening answer choices, but those choices are always wrong because they do not accomplish the question task. The correct answer might not be perfect, but will follow after the information in the stimulus, rather than seem like support for the stimulus.

Resolve/Explain

Key word: resolve, explain, paradox, discrepancy, puzzling situation, explanation Act: -read for info -identify the conflict AC: -allows both facts to be true -contains a possible cause of the situation POE: -exacerbates the paradox -only deals with one side -if the stim contains a paradox where two items are SIMILAR, then the AC that explains a difference between the two can't be correct -if the stim contains paradox where two items are DIFFERENT, then an AC that explains why the two cannot be similar can't be correct -watch for attractive wrong answers that lure you with reasonable solutions that do not meet the stated facts A resolve EXCEPT question would present four incorrect ACs that resolve or explain the situation, the one correct answer would either confuse the situation or have no impact on the situation

Sufficient Assumption/Justify the Conclusion

Key words: if assumed, conclusion follows logically, conclusion properly drawn +++"most justify" is a strengthen question! The stem must not lessen the degree of justification Act:-read for reasoning -identify con, prem, and language shif Mechanistic approach: Link new elements in the premises and conclusion and ignore elements common to both 1) Any "new element in the conclusion will appear in the correct AC - AKA the language shift 2) Elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one premise, or to two premises, normally do not appear in the correct answer - if element occurs in both con and prem, the there is alread a bridge established that justifies the presence o the element in the conclusion, so the AC does not need to contain this element. 3) Elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion usually appear in the correct answer AC: -fills missing link in the logical chain -makes conclusion valid -includes new element from language shift in premise (from prem but not con) POE: -restates premises -brings in new info +++ -necessary but not sufficient -unrelated to stim/conclusion/reasoning -elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one premise normally aren't in the correct AC Causal: AC will be paraphrase of causal assumption Justify formula: premise + AC = conclusion * Supporter assumptions* Ask yourself: does (assumption candidate) prove the conclusion? Testmaker Tricks: 1) Rewording Elements -> describing an element in one way when it first appears and another when it reappears. Ex. "Cannot reliably determine" becomes "highly susceptible to innacuracy" Thus, keep in mind that even if an element initially appears to be new or rogue, it could still be elsewhere but in a reworded form. 2)Distractor Elements -> either provide background information for the argument or are not essential to the main argument structure. The more elements in a question, the more likely that at least one is extraneous and there to distract you.

Point at Issue

Key words: point at issue, disagree about Act: -read for reasoning and info -understand main point and nuances of each arg -look for quantity statements and strength of language AC: - has answer that one speaker explicitly agrees with -the other speaker would agree with negation of that answer POE:-new ideas not clearly related to both args -points of agreement -relevant to only one of the two arguments -when stim addresses an issue that is ethical in nature, AC that is factual in nature cannot be correct. The reverse is also true - when stim addresses an issue that is factual, an AC that is ethical in nature can't be true

Method of Reasoning

Require you to select the AC that best describes the method used by the author to make the argument. Structurally, MOR questions are abstract Must Be True questions: Instead of identifying the facts of the argument, you must identify the logical organization of the argument. Key words: method of the argument is to, argument proceeds by, A responds to B's argument by AC: - POE: -contain elements that did not occur in the argument -partially true - start by describing something that did occur in the stimulus, end with something not supported -new element answers -opposite answer -reverse answer - contains familiar elements from the stim but reverses them in the AC

Assumption Flaw Questions

Question stem specifically notes that the argument is based on a flawed assumption: "The argument is most vulnerable to criticism that it takes for granted that..." "The argument is flawed because it takes for granted that..." -Tend to be more concrete in addressing the statements in the stimulus because they directly address the statements made by the author -The correct answers tend to be supporter assumptions which link together two or more elements of the argument -You can use negation technique on these questions When the ACs to a regular flaw question contain the following phrases: "Presumes, without providing justification" "Takes for granted that" You are essentially completing a mini flawed assumption question and can use the negation technique

Evaluate

Asks you to consider the question, statistic, or piece of info that would best help determine the logical validity of the argument presented in the stimulus. Key words: evaluate answer to which q would allow you to judge the validity of the argument Act: -read for reasoning -look for flaws and missing info The Variance Test: Supply two opposite responses to the question posed in the AC and then analyze how the varying responses produce different effect on the conclusion in the stimulus. If different responses produce different effects on the conclusion, the AC is correct. If different responses do not produce different effect, the AC is incorrect. —> This should only be applied to contenders after POE AC: -identifies missing information -reveals a flaw -poses a question, the answer to which would definitely decide the argument's validity POE: -are not relevant to the conclusion

Principle Strengthen/Justify Principle

Key words: principle, if valid, most justifies, most validates Each AC contains a principle that acts as an additional broad premise that supports or proves the conclusion. Act: - while reading stim, think in abstract terms to identify underlying idea or belief that can be used to draw the conclusion -as you analyze ACs, tie this idea/belief to structure of arg and ask 'if this answer is true, does it support or prove the conclusion?' AC: -states a general rule that, if applied, allows evidence to reach conclusion -says a crucial assumption is true -makes reasoning airtight POE: - not relevant -not strong enough +++ -provides unnecessary reinforcement of premises -can't be applied to the situation to reach a definite conclusion

Flaw

Key words: vulnerable to criticism, error in reasoning AC: -identify a weakness in argument -identify an assumption -correctly identify flaw pattern -match argument as closely as possible POE: -not relevant -does not correctly match argument/conclusion -describes a common flaw that the argument doesn't contain

Necessary Assumption

Keyword: assumption required, depends on, if assumed Act: -read for reasoning -identify conclusion and premises -look for language shifts and recurring flaws AC: -essential to the argument -connects evidence to conclusion -rules out obstacles -passes negation test POE: -not relevant -contradicts conclusion -too strongly worded given arg's scope -watch for answers starting with the phrase "at least one" or "at least some" -avoid answers that claim an idea was the most important consideration for the author - "primary purpose" "main factor" -watch for the use of "not" or negatives Causal: AC will be paraphrase of causal assumption The Correct AC to an assumption question WITH CAUSALITY will normally fit one of the following categories: 1) eliminates an alternate cause for the stated effects 2) shows that when the cause occurs, the effect does not 3) shows that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur 4) eliminates the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed 5) shows that the data used to make the causal statement are accurate, or eliminates possible problems with the data Negation test: Negate the AC to see whether conclusion remains intact, if conclusion falls apart, then that choice is a valid assumption Ask yourself: If the conclusion is true, must (assumption candidate) be true?

Parallel Principle

Keywords: most closely conforms to which one of the following principles, which of following judgments most closely conforms to principle stated ++use of the word 'judgement' in the stem indicates parallel Each answer often features a scenario/topic that is entirely different from that in the stim Act: -use the principle presented in the stimulus and then apply it to the situation in each AC - 1 principle applied to 5 situations AC: -follows from application of principle -matches application of principle POE: - violates the principle

Strengthen

Keywords: strengthens, most supports, most justifies +stem indicates that you should accept the ACs as true Act: - identify the conclusion -personalize the argument AC: -solidifies an assumption -introduces new info that supports the conclusion ++ -eliminates alternate explanation of the premises -bolsters integrity of the evidence -explains why/how the evidence leads to the conclusion POE: -not relevant -wrong direction (weakens) -simply restates premise Causal: AC will eliminate alternate cause or give more evidence linking cause + effect Shell game: usually used to support a conclusion that is similar to, but slightly different from, the one presented in stimulus. Basic causality and strengthen questions- Tasks: 1) Eliminate any alternate causes for the stated effects - because author believes there is 1 cause, eliminating one or more of the other possible causes strengthens arg 2) Show that when the cause occurs, the effect occurs - this type of AC can appear in the form of an example 3)Show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur - AC can also appear in form of an example 4) Eliminate the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed 5) Show that the data used to make the causal statement are accurate or eliminate possible problems with the data

Method of Reasoning - Role/Argument Part Questions

Keywords: the claim that _____serves which one of the following roles Stimuli tend to be more complex and sometimes feature two conclusions or two different viewpoints Act: -identify argument parts using indicator words -conclusion tends to be in final sentence, if main conclusion is not in last part of the argument, be prepared to answer a question about a part of the argument other than the conclusion -if two conclusions, use the Conclusion Identification Method, to identify which one is the main conclusion -Often feature two conclusions - main and subsidiary - where the main is typically placed in the first or second sentence and the last sentence contains subsidiary. —> subsidiary conclusion often preceded by conclusion indicated while the main conclusion is not POE: -answers that describe part of the argument other than the the part in the question stem.1

Weaken

Keywords: undermines, calls into question, weakens AC: -introduces new evidence that hurts the conclusion -attacks integrity of given evidence -provides alternate interpretation of evidence -introduces other consideration that might make conclusion wrong POE: -not relevant -wrong direction (strengthens) -attempt to weaken by appearing to contradict a premise -out of scope Causal: AC will suggest alt cause Sampling arg: weakness may be skewed/unrepresentative Analogy: find relevant ways two aren't familiar Conditional reasoning: attack necessary condition by showing necessary condition doesn't need to occur for sufficient to occur - presents counter example or info that shows sufficient can occur without necessary -immediately look fo AC that attacks the idea that necessary is required ++only weaken, not destroying

Parallel Reasoning/Parallel Flaw

The elements that must be paralleled: 1) The method of reasoning - if you see an identifiable form of reasoning proceed quickly and look for AC that matches form in stim 2) The validity of the argument - The validity of the reasoning in the correct AC must match the validity in the stim 3) The conclusion - look for identical wording in controlling modifiers in stim and ACs 4) The premises Act: -Identify the point of separation, features that can be used to divide answers into contenders and losers -use following four tests to evaluate answers, (listed in order of usefulness) 1) Match method of reasoning - if easy to identify move quick to ACs and look for one with identical form of reasoning 2) Match the conclusion - match conclusion of each answer choice against conclusion in the stim 3) Match the premises - most likely when you have very complex argument structure 4) Match the validity IF ALL ELSE FAILS: Test of Abstraction - abstract the structure of the stimulus, create a short statement that summarizes the 'action' without referring to the details. Ex. "The bank teller had spotted a thief once before, so she was certain she could do it again." Turns into "she had done it once, she knew it could be done again." Then take the abstraction and compare it to each argument AC: -identical wording in the conclusion "must" "could" "never" etc, sometimes similar wording -can use opposite language POE: -AC has different logical force (valid reasoning in stim, invalid in AC and vice versa) -has conclusion that does not match stim

Inference

Three types of inference stems: 1) must be true -> AC unequivocally true based on the stimulus 2) most supported -> AC almost completely provable based on text 3) fill in blank -> similar character to most supported + represents main point or next logical link in chain Keywords: must be true, most strongly supported, is compatible, what can be concluded Act: - read for info: quantity, conditional, strength of language, chain of facts -look for modifier and indicator words to gage scope -paraphrase the information provided in stim AC: -supported by the passage -softly worded +++ -sounds like simple paraphrase -combination answers: answered that are the sum of two or more stimulus statements POE: -new info -unknot info -too strong -unsupported value judgment/unsupported predictions -direct contradictions -could be true or possibly true answers -the shell game

The Shell Game

an idea or concept is raised in the stimulus, and then a very similar idea appears in the answer choice, but the idea is changed just enough to be incorrect but still attractive.