 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
|
Question Types
The table on the next page summarizes the 11 question types you’ll encounter
in the two Logical Reasoning sections. As you’ll see, the question types fall under
specific categories and are arranged by these groups. We’ll cover each question type
in depth, in the order in which they appear in the table. Take a few minutes to
familiarize yourself with them now.
| Category/ Question Type | Your Task | Percentage of Section |
| Critique | ||
| 1. Assumption | Recognize essential but unstated parts of arguments. | 17% |
| 2. Strengthen/Weaken the Argument | Recognize statements that support or damage the reasoning in arguments. | 17% |
| 3. Flaw | Recognize logical mistakes and common erroneous forms of reasoning. | 15% |
| 4. Paradox |
Recognize factors that would resolve discrepancies or
contradictions. |
5% |
| Deduction | ||
| 5. Inference |
Make deductions and infer conclusions from a set of
statements. |
14% |
| Matching | ||
| 6. Disagreement |
Identify the point at which the opinions of two people
diverge. |
4% |
| 7. Method |
Understand the techniques used by passage authors. |
2% |
| 8. Principle |
Match specific situations to general propositions, and vice
versa. |
10% |
| 9. Parallel Reasoning |
Recognize different situations that have the same underlying
logical structure. |
7% |
| Construction | ||
| 10. Main Point |
Differentiate conclusions from supporting evidence. |
3% |
| 11. Role |
Discern the function of statements in the context of logical
arguments. |
6% |
Note: Percentages are accurate at the time of publication and may
vary slightly from test to test.
You will soon see that there are specific challenges posed by each kind of
question you face and that you will need to shift into the proper frame of
mind—hence, the first step of our Logical Reasoning Essential Strategy. You’ll learn
to approach the passages in some questions with skepticism, an approach that’s not
warranted in other cases. Moreover, you’ll find that the Essential Concepts
discussed earlier play a larger role in some question types than in others, another
point of differentiation that will help you focus on the right issues at the right
time. Finally, while you’ll learn different approaches to the different question
types, you’ll find there’s a great deal of synergy among them, and you’ll learn how
skills developed to handle one question type may often be applied to other question
types as well.
The first four questions types make up the “Critique” category and require you
to assess the validity of arguments and note breakdowns and weaknesses in the
reasoning process—that is, the way in which an argument’s evidence fails to fully
establish its conclusion. Each question type in this category involves some sort of
validity crisis.
Assumption is up first, so let’s get to it.
1. Assumption (Critique)
An assumption is a required but unstated
part of an argument. It is something that is necessary for the argument to work.
Many test takers confuse assumptions with inferences. Keep these two important
points in mind:
- An inference is something that must logically follow from the premises of an argument.
- An assumption is a premise that must be added to the argument if the conclusion is to stand.
Let’s take a simple example.
Saffron and all of Saffron’s siblings, ages four to nine, are the only people at a sleepover. Therefore, only girls are at the sleepover.
Ah, if they were only this easy . . . Don’t worry, we’ll get to the tough
stuff soon enough, but sometimes it’s best to introduce difficult concepts with
straightforward examples. It’s likely that you immediately recognized the
assumption here—namely, that Saffron has no brothers. Why must that be assumed?
Because if Saffron does have one or more brothers, the
conclusion (all-girl sleepover) doesn’t follow logically from the evidence
(Saffron and all Saffron’s siblings are there). There’s a gap
between the evidence and the conclusion that must be bridged for the argument to
stand. “No Saffron brothers” bridges that gap.
Tackling the Assumption Argument
When a question stem includes some form of the word
assumption or asks what is “presupposed” in the argument,
expect there to be a gap between evidence and conclusion. Wrap your mind
around the idea that the argument is incomplete as
presented. Here are our strategies for attacking the Assumption argument.
Use the Essential Concepts.
Did you recognize the bait and switch in the Saffron example? The
author started with “siblings” but ended with “girls.” Not necessarily the
same, right? This bait and switch creates the gap in the argument. You may,
instead, have recognized an alternative: that Saffron does have one or more
brothers, which would make the argument collapse. If you see a plausible
alternative that would sink the argument, the correct assumption might be
something that discounts that possibility. When considering alternatives,
ask yourself “But what if . . . ?”—a healthy skepticism triggered by this
seemingly innocuous phrase goes a long way toward helping you sniff out the
gaps in arguments.
Loose ends is Essential Concept #6 and endemic to Assumption
questions. Loose ends must be tied up for the argument to work, so if you
notice one, chances are good that the assumption will have something to do
with that. Also be on the lookout for necessary and sufficient conditions;
this too will appear at the heart of Assumption questions.
Reword the Passage.
If the passage is complex, reword it in simpler
language: “The author says this (conclusion) because of that (evidence).”
That should help you see how the evidence and conclusion diverge. Again,
remember your Essential Concepts, such as alternatives, bait and switches,
and loose ends. These concepts will give you a clearer sense of what’s
required to bridge the gap.
Tackling Assumption Answer Choices
Optimally, your targeted passage analysis will yield clues as to what
the correct assumption might look like, or at least what gap it must close.
If so, scan the choices to see if one jumps out. Are you expected to predict
word for word what the right answer will say? Of course not—but it helps if
you can get in the ballpark. In the sleepover example, you might simply
sense that there’s something funky going on with the sibling/girl thing and
scan for something related to that.
Negate and Destroy.
This is a unique strategy specific to Assumption questions. We’ve
stated that the correct assumption must be necessary to the
argument. How do you know if something is necessary? Take it away, and see
what happens. For example, what happens if you take the cathode ray tube out
of your TV? The picture goes blank, which means the tube is necessary for
the TV to function properly. Take away the idea in the correct answer to an
Assumption question, and the argument falls apart, which demonstrates that
that idea is necessary for the proper functioning of that argument. We can
therefore test any Assumption choice by seeing if negating it kills
the argument. Here, negating the idea “no Saffron brothers”
does wreck the reasoning: If all of Saffron’s siblings
are present, and Saffron has at least one brother, it cannot be true that
only girls are at the sleepover. That confirms “no Saffron brothers” as a
necessary assumption. We’ll use this test often both to kill wrong choices
and to confirm correct ones.
Spot the Traps.
You also need to be able to spot some common traps in Assumption
choices. Let’s get to know some of the common ways in which Assumption
choices go astray:
- Irrelevant: Some wrong choices involve issues that have nothing to do with the situation at hand.
- Overreach: Some wrong choices extend the parameters of the situation in a way not required for the argument to stand—that is, they go too far to be required by the argument.
- Unnecessary Clarification: Some wrong choices clarify issues that require no clarification. A choice must address the specific gap in the passage to qualify as the assumption.
Practice: Rockin’ (Maybe) with the Muddles
You’ll get plenty of practice recognizing these wrong answer types as
we go along. For now, let’s drill a bit more on assumptions. See how many
assumptions you can spot in the following passage. (Hint: There are many.)
An amplification system is dependable if all of its speakers can withstand the constant wear and tear of a lengthy rock-and-roll tour without damage to their woofers and tweeters. These two speakers used for the Muddles’ tour sounded as good at the last show of the tour as they did at the first, which clearly shows that the amplification system used on the Muddles’ tour is dependable.
The Muddles argument is a loose ends tour de force, containing no
fewer than five assumptions. The heading here is meant to
suggest one gap in the argument—we’re not told that the Muddles is in fact a
rock band. Rock, funk, blues, what’s the difference? It matters because the
evidence clearly states the ability to endure the “constant wear and tear of
a lengthy rock-and-roll tour” as the condition on which the
designation of dependability is based. But what if the Muddles is
not a rock band (the negate and destroy test)? Then the
evidence presented is irrelevant to the claim it’s intended to justify, and
the argument falls apart.
For the “dependable” label to hold based on the condition of these
specific speakers from this specific tour, the Muddles must be a
rock band. And speaking of which, what kind of
rock tour does the author believe is necessary to test the mettle of
speakers? That’s right, a “lengthy” one. But what if the Muddles’ tour is
not lengthy? Again, a feature of the tour in question
would not match the requirements of the dependability test as stated, which
means that the condition of the Muddles’ speakers could not serve as the
basis by which to deem the system dependable. So the argument must assume
that the Muddles’ tour is lengthy.
In the same vein, the author of this argument also assumes the
following: Damage to a speaker’s woofers and tweeters would be
noticeably reflected in the sound of the speakers. If not, then
it’s possible that the speakers have not withstood the wear and tear of the
tour even though they still sound good, and the claim of
dependability would be compromised. Sound quality is a loose end that must
be tied back into the concept of damage for the argument to work. The
statement above does the trick.
Want more assumptions? Try these:
The two speakers in question are the only two speakers in the Muddles’ amplification system.
If there are more speakers, is it still possible that the system is
dependable? Sure, but not based on the stated criteria, which state that
all the speakers withstand the tour. If there are more
speakers, then the condition of these two speakers alone would not suffice
to establish the conclusion because we’d have no way of knowing the
condition of the others.
The speakers were used throughout the tour.
This assumption is derived from the Essential Concept bait and switch:
The evidence speaks of “constant wear and tear”; the
conclusion refers only to the first and last show. For all we know, the
speakers were only used during the first and last show. Or maybe they broke
down after the first show, so a related assumption would be that the
speakers have not been repaired during the tour. If repairs
were necessary, then the speakers did not “withstand” the constant wear and
tear of the tour.
No doubt this is an extreme example; most arguments you’ll face won’t
contain this many loose ends and bait and switches. But if you can
understand everything we’ve said to this point, you should have a fine grasp
of the inner workings of Assumption questions and the kinds of things you
need to notice in order to tackle them successfully. Nothing to sneeze at
either, because this question type tends to give test takers fits,
particularly those who don’t grasp the mechanism at work. But you do now. If
not, review these examples again until it clicks. When you’re ready, it’s
time to apply these concepts to actual LSAT questions. Review the Assumption
Battleplan that follows and then see how you do with the first two of the 24
actual LSAT questions in this chapter, “Employee Reductions” and “Bird
Energy.”
Assumption Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. When a question stem
includes some form of the word assumption or asks what is
“presupposed” in the argument, expect there to be a gap between evidence and
conclusion. Wrap your mind around the idea that the argument is
incomplete as presented.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Rephrase the passage in your
own words, if necessary. Isolate and compare the evidence and conclusion,
looking for the gap between them. Look for loose ends, bait and switches,
and anything else that might separate the evidence from the conclusion. Try
to envision alternatives that would sink the argument. Ask “But what
if . . .?”
Step 3: Work the Choices. If you have seen a possible gap
in the argument, scan for something that bridges or at least addresses it in
some way. Apply the negate and destroy test to confirm your choice. Did you
come up with a “But what if . . .?” alternative that would sink the
argument? Look for a choice that discounts that possibility and thus allows
the conclusion to stand. No clues? Delete any Irrelevant, Overreach, or
Unnecessary Clarification wrong choices. Apply the negate and destroy test
to the remaining choices and make your final selection.
Step 4: Mine the Experience. One last reminder to get as
much as possible out of every practice question you do. The wisdom you
extract from the practice questions will form the basis of your Logical
Reasoning mastery. Don’t skip this crucial step!
Practice: Assumption
Now we’ll show you some real LSAT questions.
NOTE: These actual LSAT questions are not included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: These actual LSAT questions are not included in the online version of this book.
Thus concludes our discussion of Assumption questions . . . or does
it? Actually no, not by a long shot. The good news is that everything you’ve
learned about spotting assumptions will help you directly with most of the
other question types in this Critique category, and in other places as well.
In fact, the “Bird Energy” argument, based around a questionable assumption,
would be perfectly suited as a Strengthen/Weaken the Argument passage. It is
to that question type that we turn our attention now.
2. Strengthen/Weaken the Argument (Critique)
Strengthen/Weaken the Argument questions test your ability to understand
the effect that new information has on an argument. Weaken question stems
generally ask:
|
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens/undermines the argument? |
Strengthen stems usually sound something like:
|
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens/provides the most support for the argument? |
The “if true” part tells you you’re not to determine the validity or
“truth” of the choice itself but rather the effect that
statement has on the reasoning employed in the argument. Here’s the effect we’re
talking about:
- A weakener is a statement that makes one less likely to believe the conclusion.
- A strengthener is a statement that makes one more likely to believe the conclusion.
A valid weakener need not utterly destroy the argument. Conversely, a
valid strengthener need not prove the argument beyond a shadow of a doubt. They
both just need to push our believability level in the right direction.
Tackling the Strengthen/Weaken Argument
Here are some strategies for attacking Strengthen/Weaken passages:
Reword the Passage.
Same advice as for Assumption questions: If you’re having trouble
spotting the gap, ambiguity, or weakness in an argument, rephrase it in
simpler terms: “The author says this (conclusion) because of that
(evidence).” You need to understand the reasoning employed if you’re to
recognize a statement that makes it better or worse.
Look for Ambiguities.
An argument that can be strengthened or weakened cannot, by
definition, be airtight—there must be some ambiguity, some weakness to
either exploit (in the case of weakening) or rectify (in the case of
strengthening). Often the ambiguity takes the form of an assumption that,
once recognized, can lead you to the right answer. That means that all of
the techniques you learned on the previous pages regarding Assumption
questions are relevant here. Remember the Muddles? The evidence spoke of
damage, the conclusion spoke of sound. We tagged this as a loose end and
from it derived a necessary assumption. But the test makers may not have
asked you for an assumption; they could easily have asked for a strengthener
instead. No problem—we’d then look for a choice that makes the
assumption go away; the less ambiguity, the better the
argument. Here’s one that would work:
The sound of a speaker always indicates whether damage has occurred to the speaker’s woofers and tweeters.
Because this statement ties up one of the argument’s loose ends, it
qualifies as an idea that, when added to the argument, makes the conclusion
seem more plausible.
Look for Alternatives.
Sometimes the most obvious thing to strike you about an argument
will be an alternative possibility or explanation that the author overlooks.
Remember, recognizing alternatives is a crucial skill that’s included in our
list of six Essential Concepts. In regard to this question type, the
existence of a plausible alternative to the author’s reasoning weakens the
argument. Discounting such a plausible alternative
strengthens the argument.
Tackling Strengthen/Weaken Answer Choices
Now some ideas for working with the choices:
Accept.
We can all stand to be a bit more accepting, right? Remember, “if
true” in Strengthen/Weaken question stems means you are to accept the
choices as true and see what happens when you bounce them off the
information in the passage. Focus on the effect.
Scan.
Optimally your passage analysis will yield an assumption, or a bait
and switch, loose end, alternative, or some other Essential Concept that
you’re learning to spot, in which case you should scan for the choice that
addresses that issue. Often, however, nothing will jump out—these arguments
are, after all, created to sound very persuasive as written. In those
cases . . .
Define the Objective.
Formulate the specific task the correct answer must perform. For
example: “Convince me that the fossil record really does
prove that those birds didn’t live during that period . . . ” Or:
“Convince me that James didn’t actually work overtime on
Thursday, as the author says.” Then test each choice in light of this
specific objective, seeing how each measures up to the task. See how each
choice makes you feel about the conclusion. Better? Worse? No change? In the
case of the latter, you’ve hit upon a classic wrong answer type. Let’s have
a look at some of those now.
Spot the Traps.
Like Assumption questions, Strengthen/Weaken questions contain
common types of wrong answer choices. Don’t let these trip you up:
- Irrelevant: The most common wrong answer type in these questions provides useless comparisons, meaningless background information, and things that simply have no effect on the conclusion. You’ll get plenty of mileage out of the question “So what?” Also beware of . . .
- Opposites: Be careful—those tricky test makers sometimes plant strengtheners among the choices of Weaken questions, and vice versa. Pay careful attention to the question asked.
Practice: Evaluating Effects
Determine whether each statement below the following passage
strengthens,
weakens, or is irrelevant to it:
Mrs. Sholskie’s third-grade class will have six more students this upcoming school year than were in her previous third-grade class. Wexler Elementary will therefore have to order more third grade–level math books this year than it did last year.
- The third-grade population of Wexler Elementary has decreased every year since Mrs. Sholskie last taught third grade four years ago.
- A teacher assistant has been added to Mrs. Sholskie’s class to accommodate the greater number of students.
- Mrs. Sholskie teaches at Wexler Elementary.
- Wexler Elementary orders more math books than reading books each year.
- Mrs. Sholskie’s class was the only third-grade class at Wexler Elementary last year and will be the only third-grade class this year.
- An unusually high percentage of students entering third grade at Wexler Elementary have been preselected to study math above their grade level.
- Wexler Elementary does not have a surplus of third-grade math books left over from last year.
Compare your thinking to the following explanations:
1: Weakens. From evidence comparing the number of
upcoming students to the number in Mrs. Sholskie’s previous
third-grade class, the author draws a conclusion about how this year’s book
requirement will differ from last year’s. But we don’t know
that Mrs. Sholskie last taught third grade last year, qualifying this as a
bait and switch (hey, we said they were subtle). For the evidence to be
relevant to the conclusion, the author must assume that Mrs.
Sholskie taught her previous third-grade class last year.
Statement 1 goes against this central assumption. Moreover, it also suggests
that compared to last year, the number of third graders is actually
dwindling. Under such circumstances, the case for a greater number of
third-grade math books required this year does not seem as persuasive.
2 and 4: Irrelevant. The addition of an extra teacher,
and the comparison between math and reading books, are both issues that have
no bearing on whether more math books are required based on the extra
students in Mrs. Sholskie’s upcoming class. So what that an
assistant has been hired—what does that have to do with the number of
third-grade math books needed? And so what if there are
more math than reading books; we don’t know how many reading books there
are, so this has no bearing on the argument either. Since so many wrong
choices are irrelevant, a hearty, well-placed “so what!” will be an
extremely important component of your Strengthen/Weaken technique.
3: Strengthens. Yeah, it definitely helps if Mrs.
Sholskie is indeed a teacher at the school in question, something never
stated outright. Does this fact prove that more books will
be needed? No—but it makes the claim more believable because it binds the
evidence to the conclusion in a way that’s necessary for the argument to
stand. In other words, it shores up a central assumption.
5: Strengthens. Statement 5 affirms the central
assumption that Mrs. Sholskie was in fact teaching third grade last year,
which by itself helps the argument. At the same time, it also addresses the
assumption that the situation in this single third-grade class is enough to
determine the math book needs of the entire third grade. It
discounts the possibility that the head counts in other
third-grade classes might lead to fewer third grade math books required than
last year. For both reasons, statement 5 makes us more likely to believe the
stated conclusion.
6: Weakens. Statement 6 breaks down another assumption in
the argument; namely, that all third graders use third-grade math books. If
a much greater percentage than usual has been chosen to study math beyond
the third-grade level, the school may not actually need more third-grade
math books just because of the six extra students cited in the evidence.
7: Strengthens. Perhaps the following “But what
if . . .?” struck you: But what if there are some extra third-grade
math books lying around from previous years? If true, that
would certainly increase the ambiguity regarding the number of books the
school must order. Statement 7 discounts this possibility and in so doing
strengthens the argument.
Now review the tailored Battleplan, and then try your hand at “Math
Principles” and “Power, Pleasure, and Pain.”
NOTE: The following “Real Deal” practice questions are from actual, previous LSAT exams. Unfortunately, these questions could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following “Real Deal” practice questions are from actual, previous LSAT exams. Unfortunately, these questions could not be included in the online version of this book.
Strengthen/Weaken Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. “If true” in the question
stem reminds you to accept the choices and focus on the effect they have on
the argument. Expect some kind of deficiency or ambiguity in the argument
that will be addressed (one way or the other) by the correct choice.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Rephrase the passage in your
own words, if necessary. Look for bait and switches and loose ends that may
indicate assumptions or other ambiguities in the argument. Keep your eye out
for plausible alternatives or explanations that the author overlooks that
might compromise the argument. Ask “But what if . . .?” to help spot these.
Step 3: Work the Choices. See an assumption in the
argument? For Weaken questions, scan for something that attacks the validity
of that assumption. For Strengthen questions, scan for something that
bolsters the validity of that assumption. Did you come up with an
alternative that would compromise the conclusion? For Weaken questions, scan
for a choice that speaks to the plausibility of that alternative. For
Strengthen questions, scan for a choice that discounts that possibility. No
clues? Define the objective of the correct choice in simple language and
test each choice rigorously against that objective. Ask “So what?” to help
you spot and delete Irrelevant choices. Beware of Opposite choices that do
the reverse of what the question seeks.
Okay, let’s move on to our third question type, Flaw.
3. Flaw (Critique)
In the classic detective satire Murder by Death, master
sleuth Sidney Wang (played by Peter Sellers), in response to another detective’s
explanation of a murder, utters something to the effect of, “Very interesting
theory, but it leaves out one important point:
IT’S STUPID! IT’S THE STUPIDEST THEORY I EVER HEARD!!”
It is in this spirit that you’re to approach Flaw questions. Whereas some
passages are salvageable through strengtheners, and others can be weakened by
the addition of extra information, the passages in Flaw questions are
logically hopeless—the flaws are inherent in the arguments,
and you’re asked to recognize the ways in which the evidence fails to establish
the conclusion. Here are some tips to get you started.
Tackling the Flaw Argument
Use the Essential Concepts
Essential Concepts come up big in Flaw questions. If a passage
contains a bait and switch, the right answer to a Flaw question might simply
point out the disconnect between evidence and conclusion. If there’s a
central assumption, the right answer might point out that the author has
taken something for granted without justification. A good “But what
if . . .” might suggest that an argument is faulty because it overlooks a
plausible alternative or explanation—in fact, many question stems actually
contain the phrase “overlooks the possibility that . . . ” Confusion
regarding cause and effect (remember Amalie?) and the difference between
necessary and sufficient conditions also provides fertile ground for flaws,
so keep your eyes peeled for those situations too. Consider again, if you
will, the strange case of thin-blooded Brown, the guy who doesn’t go out
when it feels freezing to him:
Johnson: Due to an extreme aversion to the cold, Mr. Brown almost never ventures out of his apartment when the temperature feels below freezing to him. Since the thermometer I passed in the park yesterday read 31 degrees Fahrenheit, one degree below freezing, the person I briefly glimpsed at the other end of the park was most likely not Mr. Brown.
The correct answer to a Flaw question based on this passage might
read: “The argument contains an ambiguity concerning the meaning of a key
term.” This is based on our earlier observation that we don’t know what
temperature “feels below freezing” to Brown; maybe it’s not exactly 31
degrees Fahrenheit. Recognizing this bait and switch would lead you to the
point.
Spot the Classic Flaws. Certain flaws appear
regularly in Logical Reasoning. We can’t predict which ones you’ll see on
your test, but think of the advantage every time you read a passage and say,
“Yeah, I know this one. I’ve seen it tons of times.” Since logical flaws are
characterized by a disjunction between evidence and conclusion, it’s not
surprising that so many of them contain some form of bait and switch.
Confusing cause and effect, and confusing necessary and sufficient
conditions, fall into this category and are common sources of flaws. We’ve
seen examples of these already, and you’ll see more as we go along. The
passages below contain other kinds of bait and switch flaws that have
regularly appeared on the test over the years. See if you can spot the
problem with each:
Practice
Smoking Ban
|
The members of the Parents’ Association of the Valley Brook school district voted unanimously to petition the city council to ban smoking in indoor public spaces. Since the association must act in the interests of a majority of its constituency, it is evident that the majority of Valley Brook residents are in favor of the ban. |
The Determined Mayor
|
Political commentator: Publicly, Mayor Ellison claims to remain steadfast in his determination to appoint a new police commissioner. However, no determination has yet been made regarding the appointment, so Mayor Ellison’s vow is clearly disingenuous. |
New England Transcendentalists
|
Ten percent of the adult population of a New England town, when surveyed in 1835, defined themselves as Transcendentalists, while in 1845 a full 50 percent of adults in the same town defined themselves as Transcendentalists. Thus, more adults in the town defined themselves as Transcendentalists in 1845 than did so in 1835. |
Smoking Ban
Classic Flaw: Nonrepresentative Sample
When evidence regarding a particular person or group is
generalized to draw a conclusion regarding a larger group, the group in
the evidence must be representative of the group in the conclusion for
the argument to stand. Here, evidence concerning the interests of the
Parents’ Association—and by extension their constituency, other
parents—is used to support a conclusion concerning the
opinion of the majority of town residents. The bait and
switch between “parents” and “majority of residents” is at the heart of
the flaw.
The Determined Mayor
Classic Flaw: Equivocation
Equivocation is a special form of bait and switch whereby a single
word or phrase is used in two different ways yet treated as if the same.
In this example, the mayor has expressed “determination”; that is, has
claimed to be resolved, motivated, determined to appoint a commissioner.
The author then takes the fact that no “determination” has been made to
conclude that the mayor is lying. But there’s no contradiction, because
“determination” in this second case refers to a “choice” or “decision.”
It is in fact possible that the mayor is genuinely
determined while at the same time no determination has yet been made.
Equivocation is the culprit here.
New England Transcendentalists
Classic Flaw: Confusing Percents and Numbers
A percentage represents the ratio between a part of a group and
the total group to which that part is compared. The total in this case
is the number of people in the town. The logic would hold if we knew
that the town had the same adult population in 1835 and 1845; since we
don’t know that, the conclusion is improperly drawn. Consider: If there
were 1,000 adults in the town in 1835, then 10 percent of that would be
100 professed Transcendentalists. If there were only 100 adults in the
town in 1845, then there would only be 50 professed Transcendentalists
(50 percent) that year. Without information regarding the number of
adults in the town, the conclusion is unverifiable. Don’t lose sight of
the numbers from which percentages are calculated.
More Classics.
Other classic forms of flawed reasoning have shown up on the LSAT
since time immemorial, and you should be familiar with them. You may
come across these classics in passages or see references to them among
the answer choices. These oldies but goodies, straight out of Logic 101,
include:
- Ad Hominem Attack: attempts to support a claim by railing against the character of supporters of an opposing position.
- Appeal to Emotion: attempts to convince by engendering pity for a person or thing rather than by supplying evidence to back up the position argued for.
- Appeal to Authority: attempts to convince based on the credentials of an expert.
- Part to Whole, Whole to Part: inappropriately uses evidence about part of a group to infer a conclusion about the whole group, or vice versa.
- Circular Reasoning: evidence and conclusion are functionally identical, even though they may be phrased in different ways. The problem is that no distinct evidence backs up the conclusion.
Keep your eyes open for all of the classic flaws discussed above,
not only in LSAT material but in real life too—they’ve been known to pop
up in newspaper articles, on TV, and in everyday conversation. Note
them, study them, internalize them. Correct them when uttered by friends
and family. Get yourself into trouble—it’s for a good cause.
Tackling Flaw Answer Choices
Now let’s talk about how to approach the choices.
Scan.
Optimally, you’ll recognize an Essential Concept or classic flaw
that you’ve seen before, enabling you to scan the choices for it. It’s
important to familiarize yourself with the various ways these flaws may be
described. For example, a correct choice may read: “The argument confuses a
condition sufficient for a result with a condition necessary to bring about
that result.” It might instead employ the specific terminology of the
passage: “The author fails to establish that drinking is required for Aunt
Selma to act loopy.” (You knew we’d make our way back to loopy Aunt Selma at
some point, right?) Learn to recognize both the flaws themselves and the
common ways the test makers refer to them.
Spot the Traps.
Also beware of common wrong answer types:
- Does No Such Thing: blames the author for doing something he or she does not do.
- Not a Problem: blames the author for doing something he or she does in fact do but that poses no logical problem for the argument.
- Not Obligated: blames the author for not doing something he or she is not logically obligated to do. Don’t fault the author for leaving things out that need not be there in the first place.
- Irrelevant: nothing irrelevant to the argument can illuminate the flaw in it.
Now review the Flaw Battleplan and then try “Heart Disease” and
“Corporate Boardrooms.”
NOTE: The following “Real Deal” practice questions are from actual LSAT exams and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following “Real Deal” practice questions are from actual LSAT exams and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Flaw Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. Phrases like “flaw in the
argument,” “vulnerable to criticism,” “error in reasoning,” and
“questionable technique” tell you that a flaw is at hand. Give the passage
no respect—there is a mistake in it, so get ready to find
it.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Keep your eyes peeled for
Essential Concepts and classic flaws. Look for bait and switches,
assumptions, and alternatives that the author overlooks. If you can’t spot
the flaw directly, at least try to get a sense of where the problem lies.
That will help you quickly cut through the dead wood and put you on the
scent of the best candidate among the choices.
Step 3: Work the Choices. See a classic flaw, Essential
Concept, or plausible alternative that the author overlooks? Scan the
choices for something that addresses the relevant issue. No clues?
Rigorously evaluate each choice, eliminating the common wrong answer types:
Does No Such Thing, Not a Problem, Not Obligated, and Irrelevant.
4. Paradox (Critique)
In one of the earliest episodes of The Simpsons, Bart,
after switching test booklets with the brainy Martin, is mistakenly placed into
a school for geniuses. When the teacher asks for examples of paradoxes, one
student replies “without law and order, man has no freedom”; another intones “if
you want peace, you must prepare for war.” Bart’s offering? “Well . . . you’re
damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.”
Alas, none of the examples quite fit the test makers’ conception, since
LSAT Paradox questions don’t in fact contain genuine paradoxes
but rather “seeming” paradoxes and “apparent” discrepancies. In the final
analysis, situations that appear at first glance to be surprising or unusual, or
to contain discrepancies or contradictions, are not in fact paradoxical at all
but merely require a correct choice to resolve them. Identifying the proper
resolution is your task.
In a sense, then, Paradox questions are offshoots of Strengthen the
Argument questions because in both cases you’re looking for the choice that
solidifies the connection between the facts in the passage. This question type
falls into the Critique category because the author’s claim of mysterious
goings-on turns out to be invalid. The supposedly contradictory elements of the
passage peacefully coexist after all.
Because this question type makes up roughly only 5 percent of the Logical
Reasoning section, and because it’s so similar in nature to Strengthen the
Argument, let’s, without further ado, get right to the Paradox Battleplan. Check
that out, and then see what you can make of “The Case of the Mysterious
Symptoms.”
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Paradox Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. The word
paradox or the phrase “apparent discrepancy” is a sure
tip-off. When you see these, or are asked to find the choice that “resolves”
or “explains” some situation, prepare to first encounter and then help solve
a mystery.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Identify the “paradox” or
“discrepancy”; it’s hard to recognize a resolution if you don’t understand
the mystery at hand. Be on the lookout for assumptions, bait and switches,
loose ends, and overlooked alternatives, any of which may lead you to the
resolution.
Step 3: Work the Choices. As in Strengthen questions,
define the objective of the correct choice in simple language, and test each
choice rigorously against that objective. Ask yourself, “If this choice is
true, does everything now make sense?” Ask, “So what?” to help you delete
Irrelevant choices that have no bearing on the paradox. Beware of
Unnecessary Clarification choices that explain aspects of the situation that
require no explanation and Opposite choices that actually deepen the
mystery.
That finishes our preliminary discussion of Critique questions. You’ll
have more chances to practice with these in the practice set at the end of
this chapter and the full-length test at the end of the book. For now, let’s
move on to our next category, Deduction, and the fifth question type,
Inference.
5. Inference (Deduction)
As you’ve seen, the passages in Critique questions are always
trying to get somewhere, no matter how successful the
result. The fifth major Logical Reasoning question type—Inference—is another
animal altogether. If in the first four question types you mainly played the
role of critic, then in these you get to play detective. Many Inference passages
have no overriding “point” per se, and for this reason they often have a
different feel to them. An Inference passage may leave you with the sense that
you’ve been left hanging. Unlike the previously discussed question types, it is
not necessary to focus primarily on the stated conclusion
and how the author got there; in some cases there is no
conclusion to speak of. In fact, Inference passages consist of statements from
which you are to derive reasonable deductions or conclusions.
Inference is the only question in the Deduction category because it is the
only Logical Reasoning question type that requires you to connect statements in
such a way. It also comes in a few different varieties, and we’ll show you how
to handle each. Plenty to cover, so let’s get to it.
Inference is important not only because there are
many of these questions in the two Logical Reasoning sections but also
because one type of Inference question involves formal logic, a perennial
bane of LSATers’ collective existence and a major component of Logic Games.
Clapton is God. —Anonymous, England, 1968
God is dead. —Friedrich Nietzsche, Germany, 1882
Whereas in Strengthen/Weaken questions you must accept the choices as
given, in Inference questions you must accept the passages’
premises as true and focus on what can be deduced from them.
Well, if indeed Clapton is God (a slogan scrawled on English walls intended as
praise for Eric Clapton’s guitar playing), and indeed God is dead, it follows
that Clapton is dead. It may not be what the ancient Greeks, the inventors of
logic, had in mind, but it does qualify as an example of the age-old deductive
syllogism:
X is Y. Y is Z. Therefore, X is Z.
Of course, you won’t see subject matter like this on the LSAT, which tends
to be a fairly RC (Religiously Correct) affair, and actual people rarely appear
on the test outside of the Reading Comp section. But if we accept the statements
as true and at face value, a logical deduction follows from them, and that’s the
kind of thing that’s tested in Inference questions. Simple, right? Not
necessarily. The test makers often disguise the logic under a thicket of complex
terminology, making it difficult to spot the proper inference.
Moreover, there are two main types of Inference questions, each requiring
its own approach. First we’ll look at Standard Inference questions, and then
move on to everyone’s favorite (not!), Formal Logic Inference questions.
Tackling the Standard Inference Argument
We call these “standard” to differentiate them from questions
involving formal logic. They ask you to recognize which statement among the
choices is best supported by the information in the passage. Here are a few
tips to guide your work.
Shift Gears.
The four most popular Logical Reasoning question types are
Assumption, Strengthen/Weaken, Flaw, and Inference. These types make up
close to 65 percent of the Logical Reasoning sections, which means you’ll be
seeing a lot of each. The first three we grouped in the Critique category
and taught you how to dissect and evaluate their arguments. But it bears
repeating that Inference is another story entirely. In these, you’re not
looking for a missing piece, or a flaw, or ways to make the conclusion
stronger or weaker—you’re looking for something additional that’s suggested
by the statements in the passage. You must shift gears from evaluating the
argument to seeing where the pieces of it lead.
Focus on Relevant Essential Concepts.
For the reasons stated earlier, you shouldn’t expect Inference
passages to hinge on bait and switches, loose ends, or alternatives. These
are things that generally come into play in Critique situations. However,
you may see statements containing necessary and/or sufficient conditions or
elements of cause and effect that yield valid inferences. For example:
If X is necessary for Y, and Y is necessary for Z, then it’s inferable that X is necessary for Z.
If X is sufficient for Y, and Y is sufficient for Z, then it’s inferable that X is sufficient for Z.
If X causes Y, and Y causes Z, then it’s inferable that X causes Z.
As for the other Essential Concept, recognizing unknowables is a
valuable tool for eliminating wrong choices, as we’ll discuss
below.
Tackling Standard Inference Answer Choices
Negate and Destroy.
The negate and destroy test that’s used to confirm or eliminate
choices in Assumption questions generally works for Standard Inference
questions as well. If negating the choice you believe to be correct causes a
serious problem for the argument, chances are that choice is correct.
Conversely, if nothing happens to the argument when you negate a choice,
then that choice is probably wrong. This is useful because sometimes it is
hard to tell that something must be true but easier to tell that its
opposite conflicts with the passage.
Spot the Traps.
Standard Inference questions contain very formulaic wrong choices:
- Twister choices inappropriately distort the information contained in the passage. These may be tricky because they employ the language of the passage but twist its ideas in a way that results in an unsupportable statement.
- Unknowable choices focus on issues not discussed in the passage and propose things we simply cannot speculate on based on the passage’s information. Unknowables is also an Essential Concept.
- Overreach choices take the passage’s information too far—for example, something that is probably the case is taken as a definite. Like Twister choices, these play off the language of the passage but fail because they go to extremes.
- Opposite choices directly contradict the passage. When searching for a choice that’s strongly supported by the passage, don’t be surprised to come across choices that are highly improbable or out-and-out false.
You’ll see examples of these traps as we go along. Keep in mind that
there may be some overlap among these categories. In the end, it doesn’t
matter what you call a wrong choice, as long as you know
it’s wrong.
Okay, let’s see how these Inference tips play out in the context of an
actual problem. First study the Battleplan, and then work your deductive
magic in “Endangered Species.”
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Standard Inference Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. The question stems for
these usually ask you to find the choice that is “most strongly supported”
by the information in the passage. Not only does that tell you you’re
dealing with an Inference question, but it also tells you that you probably
don’t need to manipulate complex formal logic statements or deal with the
kind of logical elements featured in Critique questions.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Don’t be surprised if there
is no major conclusion—or, in cases where there is a
conclusion, if the correct choice has little or nothing to do with it. If a
connection strikes you, certainly note it, but don’t expect the inference to
necessarily jump out at you—often, the bulk of work in these involves
analyzing the choices. The correct inference can be derived from any part of
the passage, so look to combine related statements no matter where they
appear.
Step 3: Work the Choices. The correct choice must be
relevant, and it must be appropriately limited in scope to fall within the
passage’s parameters. If not, chances are it’s an Overreach. Also beware of
the other common Inference traps: Unknowable, Twister, and Opposite.
Rigorously test your selection against the passage to confirm that it is
indeed supported by it, and use negate and destroy to further confirm it if
necessary.
Now let’s take a look at the second kind of Inference challenge:
questions involving formal logic.
Tackling the Formal Logic Inference Argument and Answer Choices
It’s very likely that at least some Logical Reasoning questions will
require you to recognize the proper implications of if, only, all,
some, none, unless, and others of their ilk. It’s dead certain
you’ll need to know how to interpret these words in Logic Games. So it’s all
good that we take the time to run through some key formal logic concepts.
Let’s begin with the most widely tested formal logic construction, the
“if/then” statement.
If you’ve eaten your pudding, then you’ve eaten your meat.
Assuming the truth of the statement above, what can you deduce from
the following? Take the statements below one at a time and see if each can
combine with the statement above to lead to a new deduction.
| If you also know . . . | Then you can deduce . . . |
| 1. Naomi has eaten her pudding. | |
| 2. Naomi has not eaten her pudding. | |
| 3. Naomi has eaten her meat. | |
| 4. Naomi has not eaten her meat. |
Reverse and Negate.
Here’s how to form valid deductions from an “if/then” statement:
Reverse and negate the “if” and the “then” clauses to come up with a logical
equivalent. Let’s see how this works. The “then” part is “you’ve eaten your
meat.” To reverse the full statement, put that first, and to negate it, turn
it into its opposite: “You haven’t eaten your meat . . .”
Now finish this new statement with the opposite of the original “if”
clause—you haven’t eaten your pudding. Reversing and
negating the clauses of the if/then statement thus yields another statement
that is logically equivalent to the original:
If you haven’t eaten your meat, you haven’t eaten your pudding.
Given the original statement and the logical equivalent we formed by
reversing and negating, let’s look at what can be deduced from the
statements above:
1. Naomi has eaten her pudding.
Deduction: Naomi has eaten her meat.
This one isn’t too tough. The original rule tells us anyone who has
eaten his or her pudding has eaten his or her meat. So Naomi the pudding
eater must also have eaten her meat.
2. Naomi has not eaten her pudding.
Deduction: Nothing!
Here’s where it gets a little trickier. Eating pudding means you ate
your meat, but not eating pudding triggers nothing. Imagine
that you knew that everyone who ate blue popsicles got blue tongues. What
happens when someone doesn’t eat blue popsicles? We don’t
know. Maybe their tongues are normal color (that is, not blue), but maybe
their tongues are blue for another reason. This brings us into unknowable
territory.
A rule that tells us the consequences of X
happening doesn’t tell us anything about the consequences of X
not happening.
3. Naomi has eaten her meat.
Deduction: Nothing!
Eating her meat is required for eating her pudding, but it isn’t
sufficient to prove that she has. See the necessary/sufficient Essential
Concept at play here? Eating meat makes Naomi eligible to
eat pudding, but we don’t know if she has.
4. Naomi has not eaten her meat.
Deduction: She hasn’t eaten her pudding.
Here we go! This is the deduction we formed from reversing and
negating the original statement. Anyone who has eaten pudding has eaten
meat, so if Naomi hasn’t eaten her meat, she can’t have
eaten her pudding. How could she have had any pudding if she hasn’t eaten
her meat?
Do the Math.
Translation: Figure it out. Of course, we don’t mean to
actually do any math, since there is no math on the
LSAT. But we can state the essence of reverse and negate in general
algebraic terms:
If X, then Y means the same thing as If NOT Y, then NOT X.
Try it out:
If Sam goes to the beach, then Ashley will go to the beach.
If Ashley goes, Sam may or may not go; we can’t tell. But one thing’s
for sure: If NO Ashley, then NO Sam. This, like the pudding example, is
similar to a Logic Games rule. Logical Reasoning formal logic tends to be
wordier, but it works in exactly the same way.
Practice: Salonian Economy
Reverse and Negate.
Now try using the reverse and negate technique to extract a valid
deduction from this mess:
Whenever the economy of Salonia retreats into recession, the unemployment level rises in direct proportion to the decrease in government subsidies to high-tech industries.
Does this passage make immediate sense? Not particularly. Does it need
to? Not particularly. It’s merely a disguised if/then statement (note that
“whenever” functions the same as “if”) that must follow the law of reverse
and negate:
If unemployment is NOT rising in direct proportion to decreases in high-tech subsidies, then the economy of Salonia has NOT retreated into recession.
Many test takers would get bogged down in the wordiness without
realizing that understanding the if/then formal logic structure and applying
reverse and negate are all that’s required.
Practice: Sebastian’s Caffeine
Now see what you can make of the following passage involving another
formal logic concept. What can you deduce for sure?
Only by imbibing caffeine in the morning will Sebastian be fully awake by 8:00 a.m. But Sebastian will not imbibe caffeine unless his wife is not present.
The word “only” denotes “necessity”: Caffeine in the morning is
necessary for Sebastian to be fully awake by 8:00. No
morning caffeine, no full wakefulness by 8 a.m. for
Sebastian. Does morning caffeine guarantee full wakefulness
by 8:00 a.m.? No—it’s not sufficient, merely
required. Maybe Sebastian hasn’t slept all night, or maybe he’s ill, or some
other reason has conspired to keep him tired with or without morning
caffeine. Moreover, he can be fully awake any time
after 8:00 a.m., as nothing
forbids that. Notice the very precise and strict boundaries created by
formal logic statements. Now let’s add the “unless” part to the mix: No
caffeine for Sebastian unless his wife’s not present means
that his wife’s absence is required for Sebastian to imbibe
caffeine. So if his wife is with him up until 8:00
a.m., we know for a fact that Sebastian will not be
fully awake by then.
Practice: Authors and Majors
Here’s another passage with a formal logic concept. What issue is left
up in the air?
Many authors who write about cultural studies majored in communications in college. However, no one who majored in communications or philosophy in college has been published by Zenith Press. Some of the authors published by Zenith Press have written about both cultural studies and the civil rights movement, and Zenith Press has published books on both of these subjects.
Work in Groups.
Think of this as a “groups” passage, testing your ability to
understand who’s in which group and which groups can and cannot overlap.
Notice the plethora of groups represented here: authors, cultural studies
authors, civil rights authors, Zenith Press authors, communications majors,
non–communications majors, philosophy majors, and non–philosophy majors.
There’s a decent amount of wiggle room when it comes to figuring out who
can, cannot, and must be associated with each group, and the ambiguities
inherent in the passage create more than enough material for wrong choices.
For example, just because some Zenith Press authors have written on both
cultural studies and the civil rights movement doesn’t mean they haven’t
written on other topics—or, for that matter, that they
have. Even trickier, it doesn’t necessarily mean that these are the authors
of the books Zenith has published on these topics; perhaps these authors
wrote magazine articles on these subjects but published books on different
topics for Zenith.
Read very carefully! Remember the Unknowables
drill from the Essential Concepts section? The ability to recognize
Unknowables definitely comes into play here.
So what can be deduced for sure, then? On the test,
you wouldn’t try to make a prediction—the passage is far too complicated.
Instead, you’d look at the choices and consider them one by one. But for
practice, let’s try to make a deduction without the choices to help us. The
trick is to focus on the most concrete facts, in this case
represented by the phrase “no one” and the statement in the final clause of
the passage. Working backward, we know that Zenith definitely published
books on both cultural studies and the civil rights movement. We also know
for a fact that no Zenith author was a communications or philosophy major in
college. So it must be true that some cultural studies writers, and some
civil rights movement writers, were neither communications nor philosophy
majors in college. Some form of that idea would appear as the right answer.
The rest is all a matter of conjecture—and, not surprisingly, perfect fodder
for many would-be wrong choices.
Okay, now check out the Battleplan and then pit your skills against
“Concert Rules.”
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Formal Logic Inference Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. Whereas Standard
Inference questions usually contain some form of the phrase “most strongly
supported,” questions containing formal logic almost always ask for the
choice that “must be true” or is “most properly” or “most
logically inferred.” When you see wording like this in a question stem,
there’s a good chance that the passage contains formal logic. Words in the
passage like if, only, many, all, some, none, never, and
always confirm it.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Take note of statements
containing words such as if, only, unless, all, some,
and none and their equivalents, such as
whenever, each, every, never, most, and many.
Translate such statements into simpler language when necessary, and
treat these statements as hard-and-fast rules. Reverse and negate if/then
statements (or any statements that can be translated into if/then
statements) to form valid deductions. Look to combine statements, especially
those containing repeated words or phrases. When attempting to form
deductions, focus on the most concrete information first. Take note when
different groups appear in the passage, and do your best to keep track of
who belongs where.
Step 3: Work the Choices. If you’ve successfully combined
statements to form a new deduction, scan for it among the choices. If you
can’t form a deduction, evaluate the choices one by one, searching for the
statement that absolutely must be true.
That does it for our sole Deduction question type for now. Let’s move
on to our next category, Matching, and our sixth question type,
Disagreement.
6. Disagreement (Matching)
The most important thing about questions in the Matching category, and the
reason we call it “Matching” in the first place, is that the questions in this
group often are best approached by matching each element of the choices to the
elements of the passage. You’ll find that the wrong answer types you’ve studied
so far—Irrelevant, Overreach, Opposite, etc.—are less important for the
questions in this category. Although some wrong choices may certainly be
characterized as such, you’ll learn to work the choices in these questions in a
more directed manner based on the matching mechanism noted above; you’ll see
what we mean in the context of each question type. You should also expect to
make a few “quick kills” in Matching questions—that is, to knock off one or more
choices very fast based on a single word or short phrase contained in the
choice.
Debate is the name of the game in Disagreement questions. Consider the
following:
First Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Second Man: No it isn’t.
This exchange from the Monty Python sketch “Argument Clinic” parodies the
contentious and litigious nature of our society by portraying a place where
people pay a fee solely for the opportunity to argue with someone. Naturally,
disagreement plays a large part in legal proceedings, and it therefore stands to
reason that law schools would be interested in your ability to recognize the
point at issue when people don’t see eye to eye. We include this question type
in the Matching category because your task is to match each answer choice to the
dialogue in the passage, looking for the choice containing the issue that
encapsulates the diverging viewpoint. Perhaps the chorus from Dave Mason’s
1970’s hit “We Just Disagree” best captures the spirit of this question type:
“There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys. There’s only you and me and
we just disagree.” Now consider the following exchange:
Tess: As digital video cell phones become more sophisticated and affordable, they will revolutionize the field of journalism because they will enable ordinary bystanders to feed breaking stories in real time to news organizations.
Moe: But news organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the privileged status of their field reporters, so it’s more likely that bystander involvement will be forbidden and the new technology will be used by reporters to submit their footage faster than is currently possible.
Tackling the Disagreement Argument
Identify the Crux.
In Matching questions, much of the work takes place in evaluating
the answer choices by matching them to the debate in the passage. But there
is one important step you should perform as you familiarize yourself with
the disagreement, and that is to see whether you can scope out the point
that seems to be at the heart of the matter. You need not put it into words;
the choices do that for you. But you should try to get a sense of the
overlapping and debatable issue—the sticking point, so to speak—so you’ll
recognize that issue when it appears in the choices.
Tackling Disagreement Answer Choices
Scan if Possible.
If you have a firm grasp of the debate and have successfully
identified the crux of the matter, the right answer might jump out at you,
so a quick scan may be in order. This may help you to single out the right
answer faster, but you’ll still need to confirm your choice by matching it
to the specifics of the dialogue.
Embrace the Unknowable.
Your job is to recognize where the disagreement lies; one major key
is to understand where it doesn’t. Our Essential Concept
unknowables thus plays a large role here, for we have to
know each speaker’s opinion on an issue before we conclude
that they disagree on that matter. Many wrong answer choices will center
around issues that one or both speakers don’t address. Consider the
following choice:
Cell phones will cause a revolution in journalism.
This can’t be the answer since we don’t know Moe’s opinion on this
issue. He does believe cell phones will speed things along, but whether he
thinks this will spur a journalistic revolution is anyone’s
guess. What about:
Bystander involvement in documenting breaking news stories will jeopardize the status of current field reporters.
Moe says yes; Tess says . . . well, we don’t know what Tess says. The
effect on field reporters is not part of her argument. Her opinion on this
is therefore an unknowable, so a choice focusing on this issue can’t be
correct either.
Eliminate Points of Agreement.
The disagreement obviously can’t center around a point of
agreement, so any choice containing an issue that the
two speakers agree on should be quickly chopped. For example, in the
Tess/Moe standoff, an answer choice reading “video cell phones will affect
journalism” would have to be rejected, since both would vote yes on this
count, although for different reasons.
Test for Relevance.
Some choices focus on issues that simply are irrelevant to the topic
under discussion, and you should make quick kills out of these. In
Tess v. Moe, for example (may as well start getting
down with legal lingo, right?), future improvements in cell phone technology
is beyond the scope of both arguments and cannot be the point of
disagreement we seek.
Quiz the Speakers.
The process described above involves asking how each speaker would
respond to the issue contained in each choice. Doing this allows us to
discover choices containing Unknowables and points of agreement that we can
cross off with confidence. Quizzing the speakers also helps us to confirm
the right answer, because the opinions we get from the two speakers in
response to the issue in the correct choice will be at odds. In the Tess/Moe
debate, the point at issue concerns the question of how
video cell phones will affect journalism. Having identified that as the crux
of the argument, we may find it a simple matter to ascertain the speakers’
positions on a choice like the following:
Bystanders will play a role in the improvement of journalism through cell phones.
Put the issue to our arguers: Tess says yes, Moe says no. When
quizzing the speakers leads to different answers, we’ve found our winner.
Notice that the issue of “bystanders” is part of
both arguments—the right answer must revolve around an issue that both
speakers care about.
Keep these points in mind as you check out the Disagreement
Battleplan, and then apply what you’ve learned to the fascinating debate in
“Oceans and Eccentricity.”
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Disagreement Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. Sometimes you’ll see the
phrase “point at issue” in the stem; other times, some form of the word
“disagreement.” You generally won’t have to engage in the kinds of logical
gymnastics described earlier in this chapter, so prepare instead to perform
a rigorous comparison of the choices to both sides of the dialogue to locate
the sticking point.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Identify the crux of the
argument—the issue that seems relevant to both speakers’ statements. Note
points of agreement, if any (it’s likely that some wrong choices will center
around those), and see if you can sniff out the source of the disagreement.
Step 3: Work the Choices. If the point at issue jumps out
at you, scan for your idea. Match the choices to the argument. To test a
choice, first test whether it is relevant to both speakers’ comments. If
it’s irrelevant to either or both, or if either speaker’s opinion on the
matter in the choice is unknowable, cross that choice off. If the issue in a
choice is relevant to both statements, Quiz the Speakers to
analyze each one’s take on that issue, searching for a point of conflict.
Ask yourself, “What would speaker 1 say about this? What would speaker 2 say
about this?” If different answers come back, you’ll know you’ve found the
winner.
Next let’s take a look at Method questions.
7. Method (Matching)
Method questions ask what the author is doing in the
passage. For example, perhaps the author cites a relevant source to dispute the
evidence for a claim. Or maybe the author agrees with a conclusion but offers
alternative evidence for it. Perhaps he or she employs an analogy to counter or
confirm a point or rejects a recommendation on the basis of an alternative
interpretation. You’ll notice the abstract nature of Method arguments; this
abstraction is reflected in the answer choices, and this will be challenging for
some.
We place Method questions in the Matching category because you need to
meticulously compare the specific elements of each choice to the information in
the passage. For instance, using the last example cited above, you’ll ask
yourself, “Is there really a recommendation here?” and will
look back at the passage to find out. If not, you can cross that choice off
without reading another word—every element must match for a
choice to be correct. If there is a recommendation, you then
have to see whether it is in fact rejected by the author, and if so whether an
alternative interpretation is involved. Only when all elements
are present and accounted for should you deem a choice worthy. The trick is to
become adept at recognizing the very precise usages of the kinds of words that
appear in the answer choices—not any old thing will count as a “hypothesis,” for
example.
Don’t let lofty-sounding language just wash over
you. Put the choices through their paces to see if the elements they contain
really exist in the passage or just in the test makers’ active imaginations.
There are two kinds of Method questions: Stand-alone and Dialogue.
Stand-alone Method Questions. These contain a single passage
accompanied by a question asking how the author makes her point. In this type,
you generally need not worry whether the logic is sound; you
merely need to understand what the author is trying to do.
Common stems for Stand-alone Method questions include the following:
The author’s method in the argument can best be described as . . .
The argument proceeds by . . .
The author does which one of the following . . .
The author employs which one of the following techniques/argumentative strategies . . .
Dialogue Method Questions. These are based around
conversations like the ones you just saw in the Disagreement discussion, with
one speaker responding to the argument of another. The stems for these usually
look something like this:
Person X uses which one of the following techniques in countering Person Y’s argument?
Person X responds to Person Y by doing which one of the following?
Which one of the following most accurately describes how Person X’s response is related to Person Y’s argument?
Tackling the Method Argument
Take a Step Back.
Method questions, especially the stand-alone variety, often test your
ability to generalize from a specific situation. For example, an argument in
which the author states that something should be done would match the word
“recommendation” if that word showed up in a choice but not the word
“prediction” or “phenomenon.” A series of causal factors might rightfully
qualify as a “process” but not an “occurrence.” An argument that features a
counter to a position would nicely match the word “refutation” but not the
word “propagation.” Many big words may sound alike if you let them just wash
over you; it’s likely that you’ll be tested to see whether you know the
difference between them. So as you read through Method passages, keep one
eye on what the author is doing in general, because you’ll
often encounter generalizations in the choices that you’ll need to match to
the specifics of the passage. The better you extract the gist of the passage
in general terms, the better off you’ll be when you get to the choices.
Generalizing from the text is an important skill
that also comes into play in a big way in the Reading Comprehension
section.
Go with What You Know.
Since the second speaker in dialogue Method questions often attempts
to point out a weakness or an error in the first person’s argument, the
things you dealt with in Weaken the Argument and Flaw questions, including
Essential Concepts, may very well come in handy. For example, say the Aunt
Selma story from earlier was presented in the form of the following
exchange.
Uncle: Your Aunt Selma is acting loopy, and since drinking always makes Aunt Selma loopy, it follows that she is drunk right now.
Nephew: But surely there are other things besides intoxication that might cause Aunt Selma to act loopy, so I disagree with the basis of your claim.
A quick flashback to Disagreement questions:
What’s the point at issue in the Uncle-Nephew dialogue? One choice would
almost certainly refer to the issue of whether Selma is in fact
drunk. Clearly the uncle believes she is. And the nephew
thinks she’s not, right? Wrong! We don’t know for sure that he thinks
she’s sober in this instance; he’s merely objecting to the process by
which his uncle reaches his conclusion (i.e., objecting to “the basis”
of his claim). Recognizing the uncle’s confusion between what’s
sufficient and what’s necessary to bring about Selma’s loopiness, as
we’ve discussed earlier, the nephew essentially points out that Selma
need not necessarily be drunk based on the evidence
cited by the uncle. He’s therefore saying that his uncle’s conclusion
doesn’t make logical sense; he doesn’t, however, argue that his aunt is
actually sober. The disagreement therefore centers on whether loopiness
ensures drunkenness. The uncle evidently believes it does; the nephew
says it need not.
What might a Method question based on this scenario look like?
Something like this:
The nephew’s response is related to the uncle’s argument in which one of the following ways?
Your recognition that the nephew is in some way invoking our necessary
and sufficient conditions Essential Concept gets you more than halfway
there.
Tackling Method Answer Choices
Use Essential Concepts and Scan.
If you notice an Essential Concept at work during your attack on the
passage, scan for it among the choices. In regard to the nephew’s response
to his uncle’s argument, an answer choice could read:
It challenges the support for his main assertion by pointing out that a factor that guarantees a behavior need not be required to produce that behavior.
Sounds like gobbledygook to the untrained ear. To you it should sound
like a description of the necessary/sufficiency flaw, the very thing you’d
be scanning for among the choices. This illustrates how recognizing an
Essential Concept would help you solve a Method question.
Make the Match.
Notice how the general wording of the choice above accords perfectly
with the specifics of the dialogue: “challenges the support for his main
assertion” matches “I disagree with the basis of your claim,” and “a factor
that guarantees a behavior need not be required to produce that behavior” is
a fancy way of pointing out the necessary/sufficient error in the uncle’s
reasoning. And rest assured that some wrong choice in this Method question
would assert that the nephew takes issue with the uncle’s main point,
period, when, as we’ve seen, he doesn’t directly challenge the actual
conclusion that she’s drunk but rather the uncle’s support for that
conclusion.
So the trick is to match the choices to the situation meticulously,
using your Essential Concepts and full arsenal of strategies to help you
when possible. Having worked through the dialogue Method exercise above, get
some practice with the Stand-alone variety on the following page. Review the
Method Battleplan and then check out the wonderful world of “Species
Alterations.”
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Method Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. When the stem indicates
Method is your concern, adopt a generalist frame of mind that will help you
to match the choices to the passage. Maintain a generalist perspective, but
remember that strategies adopted for other question types may come into
play.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. In Stand-alone Method
questions, translate the specifics of the passage into general terms such as
prediction, recommendation, and
analogy—these are the kinds of terms you’ll often encounter
in the choices. Take special note of whether the author is arguing for or
against a specific position, and whether the author offers an explanation or
alternatives to an explanation or proposal. If the question is in dialogue
form, look for the responder to point out alternatives to or assumptions and
flaws in the other speaker’s reasoning.
Step 3: Work the Choices. Match the elements in the
choices to the passage or, in a dialogue situation, to the comment in
question. Look for “quick kills”—choices that you can axe quickly thanks to
an obvious wrong word or phrase. Remember, you only need one good reason to
get rid of a choice. If you find a good reason, eliminate that choice and
move on. On the other hand, the correct choice is correct in all its
elements. Meticulously sign off on every aspect of the choice before making
your selection.
Okay, we’ll move on to our third kind of Matching question:
Principle.
8. Principle (Matching)
A principle is a general proposition that informs how specific situations
that fall within its domain should be viewed. Consider the following excerpt
from the Declaration of Independence:
All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Translation: People tend to put up with sucky situations, but
when a government tries to enslave its own people, the people are justified in
overthrowing it.
Why did Jefferson and Co. bother to delineate this principle? Because they
themselves had a bit of overthrowing on their minds, and they wanted to justify
the split from England that this famous document was created to declare. The
general proposition—the principle—was established, followed by the announcement
of an upcoming event to be justified by the principle invoked. The appearance of
Principle questions on the LSAT is certainly no mystery, since general
principles form the foundation of law, which is inherently concerned with the
establishment of guidelines by which to interpret behavior and events.
Principle questions generally come in two varieties: supporting and
conforming.
Supporting Principle Questions. This kind of Principle
question asks for a principle that would “best support” or “most help to
justify” a situation described in the passage. These work very much like
Strengthen the Argument questions, except that the answer choices are principles
that you have to accept as valid instead of facts that you have
to accept as true. The mechanics are the same, however, as your
task is still to evaluate the effect of the choices on the
scenario in question.
Conforming Principle Questions. This kind of Principle
question asks you to match a situation in the passage to the principle in the
choices to which it conforms, or vice versa: to match a principle in the passage
to a situation among the choices that best accords with the stated principle.
Let’s discuss how to handle each type.
Tackling the Supporting Principle Argument and Answer Choices
Go with What You Know.
For Supporting Principle questions, use all of the strategies you
learned to handle Strengthen the Argument questions. As with all Strengthen
questions, the passage may hinge on an assumption, or one of the Essential
Concepts, such as a bait and switch or loose end. If that’s the case, the
correct principle will function much like a typical strengthener,
solidifying the argument by closing gaps and helping the evidence lead more
smoothly to the conclusion. You should also rely on another Strengthen the
Argument technique: Define the objective of the correct answer, and then
meticulously adhere to that objective while investigating the general
propositions set out in each choice. No matter how you come to it, the
correct choice will be the one containing a principle that makes you
more likely to believe the argument put forth in the
passage.
Spot the Traps.
Since Supporting Principle questions share so much in common with
Strengthen questions, the common traps from the Critique world apply. Beware
of principles that are Irrelevant to the argument and Opposite choices that
actually weaken the argument.
(Note: You may occasionally see a question that asks for
the principle that most weakens or damages
an argument. No problem—just adopt a Weaken the Argument mentality instead.)
Tackling the Conforming Principle Argument and Answer Choices
Avoid Distractions.
Conforming Principle questions generally don’t involve assumptions,
inferences, flaws, or the Essential Concepts, so don’t get bogged down
looking for these. Home in on the principle or situation described in the
passage, and then meticulously test the answer choices to find the proper
match that “accords with” or “conforms to” it.
Obey the Rule.
If the principle appears in the passage, treat that principle as a
rule and look for the choice containing the specific situation that
satisfies that rule. Expect the wrong choices to either break or be
irrelevant to the rule.
Make the Match.
No matter where the principle appears—in the passage or in the
choices—the elements of the correct choice must perfectly match up with the
elements of the passage. If anything in an answer choice seems mislabeled,
or out of kilter in any way with what you see in the passage, chop it.
As always, the strategy points are distilled in the Battleplan. Review
that now, and then see what you can make of “Charity Scam.”
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Principle Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. Some variation of the
phrase “Which principle, if established/valid, would support the position
above” is your clue that you’re dealing with a Supporting Principle
question. (Sometimes they’ll use the word “generalization” or “proposition,”
but it basically means the same thing.) If the question takes this form,
shift into Critique mode with your Strengthen the Argument techniques and
Essential Concepts at the ready. If, however, you’re asked to find the
choice that most closely conforms to a principle stated in the passage, or a
principle that best accords with a situation described in the passage, shift
out of Critique mode—don’t expect to see gaps in logic
or much in the way of Essential Concepts.
Steps 2/3: Attack the Passage/Work the Choices. We treat
these two steps together because sometimes the principle in Conforming
Principle questions appears in the passage, while other times a specific
situation is described in the passage and principles appear in the choices.
In the first case, treat the principle as a rule and look for the choice
that contains a situation that satisfies that rule. In the second case, get
the gist of the specific situation in the passage, and then meticulously
compare its elements with the principle in each choice, looking for the
perfect match. In Supporting Principle questions, use the Essential Concepts
and look for assumptions that the correct principle may shore up. In all
cases, meticulously match the choices to the passage and sign off on every
element of a choice before making it your selection.
That does it for this Supporting Principle question. You’ll have a
chance to try your hand at the Conforming variety in the practice set at the
end of this chapter and the practice test at the end of the book. We turn
now to the last of the Matching question types, the granddaddy of Matching,
as it were, Parallel Reasoning.
9. Parallel Reasoning (Matching)
Parallel Reasoning questions contain the most obvious matching element of
the question types in this category, since they ask you flat-out to find an
argument among the choices that mimics or parallels the logical structure of the
argument in the passage. The correct choice must therefore be a perfect match of
the original, with no omissions or extraneous elements. Note that you’re asked
to mimic the logic, not the content of the
original.
Parallel Reasoning questions are among the most intimidating on the LSAT:
They’re long, they appear complicated, and the fact that the choices usually
differ in subject matter from the passage tends to throw test takers for a loop.
However, these can be cut down to size if you know what to look for and how to
match the choices against the elements of the original.
Standard and Parallel Flaw. Most Logical Reasoning sections
contain two Parallel Reasoning questions, which means that you’ll likely face
four of these overall. Moreover, the two per section usually include one
Standard Parallel Reasoning question and one Parallel Flaw question. In Standard
Parallel Reasoning questions, the reasoning in the original argument and the
correct choice is valid, while in Parallel Flaw questions it’s not. That’s the
only difference between these two Parallel Reasoning varieties. You’ll learn an
effective approach to each.
Tackling the Standard Parallel Reasoning Argument and Answer Choices
Eliminate the Flaws.
If the question stem doesn’t explicitly indicate that there’s a flaw
in the passage argument, then we’re dealing with a standard Parallel
Reasoning question. Since the logic of the original argument and the correct
choice must both be valid, you can eliminate any choice containing faulty
reasoning.
Do the Math.
Some passages are amenable to symbolic representation, in which case
blocking the passage out in X’s and Y’s may help you to reword the passage
and recognize the logically equivalent argument. For example, consider the
following adaptation of the Zenith Press argument introduced in the
Inference section:
No one who majored in communications in college has been published by Zenith Press. Since some of the authors published by Zenith Press have written about the civil rights movement, some people who have written about the civil rights movement have not majored in communications.
Could be pretty confusing, even though you’ve seen a form of this
argument before. But since we’re concerned only about its logical
structure, nothing stops us from breaking the argument
down like so:
No X (college communication majors) are Y (authors published by Zenith Press). Since some Y (authors published by Zenith Press) are Z (people who have written about the civil rights movement), some Z (people who have written about the civil rights movement) are not X (college communication majors).
Of course, you wouldn’t repeat the passage wording; we’ve just done
that to illustrate the technique. Your algebraic representation would look
like this:
No X are Y. Since some Y are Z, some Z are not X.
Make the Match.
You would then match this structure to each choice, looking for the
one that perfectly conforms. And don’t expect the right answer to be about
authors and publishers! Remember, that’s the content; you
need to mimic the logic. For kicks, see if you can mimic
this very structure using “dogs obtained at the pound,” “dogs who have
received shots,” and “dogs who are housebroken” as the passage elements.
Here’s one possibility:
No dogs obtained at the pound (no X) have received shots (are Y). Since some dogs who have received shots (some Y) are housebroken (are Z), some housebroken dogs (some Z) were not obtained at the pound (are not X).
Note that while the logic must be identical, the sequence of
statements need not be. In other words, the next argument would be parallel
as well.
Some housebroken dogs were not obtained at the pound since some dogs who have received shots are housebroken and no dogs obtained at the pound have received shots.
Different order, same logic.
If you’re comfortable with this approach, use it when possible.
However, understand that often an algebraic treatment is not viable. In
those cases, rely on the following technique.
Characterize the Conclusion and Scan.
When it’s not possible to break the argument down into symbols, your
best bet is to characterize the conclusion of the original argument and scan
the conclusions in the choices, eliminating those that don’t match up. That
will usually allow you to eliminate at least one, often two, and sometimes
even three choices right off the bat. Then you can dig deeper among the
remaining choices to spot other points of inconsistency, but the point is
that you should never have to read and reread every word of every
choice; that’s what drives people crazy in Parallel Reasoning
questions, and it eats up a ton of clock, to boot.
After eliminating choices containing flawed logic and choices with
dissimilar conclusions, you should only have to fully analyze a few
choices—that’s what cuts these down to size. But what do we mean by
“characterizing the conclusion”? We mean you should put the conclusion into
general terms, much like we discussed in Method and Principle questions. For
example, “The judge should therefore dismiss the witness’s testimony” can be
simply characterized as a “recommendation.” It’s guaranteed that at least
one choice, and maybe more, will not conclude with a recommendation, so you
can cross those off on that count alone. Maybe the original conclusion
contains a “refutation,” or “prediction,” or “proposition,” or
whatever—figure out what it is and then scan for the same kind of conclusion
among the choices. Then find the choice that backs up that conclusion with
the same kind of evidence as in the original.
Tackling the Parallel Flaw Argument and Answer Choices
In this kind of Parallel Reasoning question, you’re told right in the
question stem to find the choice that mimics or parallels the “flawed” or
“erroneous” reasoning in the original. The techniques described above for
standard questions, especially characterizing the conclusion, will usually
work for this type as well. However, in this case you have even more to work
with: your understanding of common and classic flaws that you picked up from
our earlier discussion of Essential Concepts and Flaw questions. Here’s how
that knowledge can pay off here.
Generalize the Flaw.
If you can characterize the flaw, all you need to do is find the
choice that contains the same flaw in the context of a different scenario.
For example, to call on loopy Aunt Selma yet again, if the uncle’s argument
was found in the original passage, you’d say to yourself, “Okay, he’s
confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.” If you spot this from the
get-go, finding the choice that contains the same mistake shouldn’t be too
difficult, especially when usually one choice, and sometimes more, won’t be
flawed at all. The key is to generalize the flaw, whether
you’ve seen it before or not. If you can’t generalize the flaw, you can
still eliminate the arguments that seem valid and then compare conclusions
using the Characterize the Conclusion and Scan technique to narrow down the
rest.
All of these approaches are best understood in context. Between the
questions in this chapter and those on the practice test at the end of the
book, you’ll get practice with both kinds of Parallel Reasoning questions
and each of the techniques discussed above. Of course, you should hone your
approach with many real practice questions as well. Begin with the
Battleplan and then test out its strategies on “First-time
Authors.”
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Parallel Reasoning Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. Words like
parallel, most similar, and mimic are
your clues that you’re up against Parallel Reasoning. Note whether the
question stem indicates that the reasoning in the passage is flawed. If so,
prepare to scope out the flaw. If not, prepare to chop any choice that does
contain a flaw.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. In Parallel Flaw questions,
try to determine the flaw in the passage’s reasoning. Keep your eye out for
flaws related to the Essential Concepts, such as confusing necessary and
sufficient conditions and reversing cause and effect. Also be on the lookout
for the classic flaws you learned about in our earlier discussion of Flaw
questions. If the passage contains formal logic elements, consider “doing
the math,” rewording the statements using algebraic variables. If the
passage is not ripe for symbolization, characterize the conclusion in
general terms so you can search for the same kind of conclusion among the
choices.
Step 3: Work the Choices. If you spotted the flaw in the
original, scan for the choice that exhibits the same faulty reasoning. If
you “did the math,” match your algebraic symbolization to the choices to
find the perfect match. If neither approach applies, compare the conclusions
in the choices to that of the original, crossing off those that don’t match.
Don’t be influenced by the sequence of statements in the
choices. The logic of the correct choice must match the
original, but the order need not. Narrow the choices down as far as you can,
and then rigorously match every element of each remaining choice to every
element of the original until the one truly parallel argument emerges.
And that finishes up our discussion of Matching questions, so let’s
move on to our final Logical Reasoning category, Construction, and our next
question type, Main Point.
10. Main Point (Construction)
To construct is to put something together, and
accordingly both Main Point and Role questions focus on how the authors of
Logical Reasoning arguments combine their thoughts to create a desired
effect.
Construction questions could just as easily be called Dissection
questions, since one way to understand how something is constructed is to take
it apart. Remember dissecting pigs and frogs in eighth grade science class, with
that horrible-smelling stuff called formaldehyde and that one future surgeon
ripping out organs and guts, holding stuff up asking “What’s this thing for?!?”
That, minus the gore, is the mindset you need to adopt for the final two
question types we’ll consider, Main Point and Role questions.
Dissecting written text is an important skill we’ll explore in more depth
in Reading Comprehension when we work on deconstructing the passages to form
paragraph synopses. Just as formal logic Inference questions are closely related
to the formal logic challenges in the Logic Games section, Construction
questions are similar to certain Reading Comprehension question types. Both test
your ability to extract the main points from written passages, to understand
what an author is doing as opposed to what she’s
saying, and to recognize how certain statements function in
the context of the passage.
Don’t expect to see a lot of these in Logical Reasoning, but you don’t
want any surprises on test day, and the skills and techniques that come into
play here are, as we’ve said, extremely relevant to Reading Comprehension. So
let’s get to the point with Main Point.
Tackling the Main Point Argument
Think Globally.
In these questions you’re asked to locate the choice that best
expresses the overriding idea of the passage. Sometimes the test makers will
ask you for the main point, other times for the conclusion, and still other
times simply for what the author is arguing. Specifically, they want to see
whether you can differentiate between the thing the author is ultimately
getting at and the other stuff in the passage that’s used to back that point
up. The conclusion is in there somewhere—you just have to recognize it for
what it is. The conclusion answers the question “What does
the author say?” while the evidence answers the question
“Why does she say that?”
Let Context Be Your Guide.
The meaning of a statement depends on the context in which it is
found. Consider the following two arguments:
Nunez is the best sales representative in the Northwest region. He has secured the most new accounts in each of the previous three quarters and earned the highest customer satisfaction rating of all the reps in the region.
Nunez is the best sales representative in the Northwest region. Nunez will be out of town on a sales call next Friday. We should postpone the employee awards ceremony until next week.
The bolded statement is the same in each case, but its function in the
two arguments differs. Think about the main point of each argument and the
evidence that backs it up. (As you’ll soon see, this kind of drill is very
applicable to handling Role questions as well.)
Get to the Point.
Okay, let’s consider Nunez of the North. If the author was given
only one sentence to convey her main concern, what would it be? Would the
author of the first argument be satisfied if a listener walked away knowing
only that Nunez has gotten the most accounts in each of the last three
quarters? No; her point would be incomplete. She might say, “No, I told you
that for a reason—to prove that Nunez is the best rep
in the Northwest.” That confirms the bolded sentence in the first argument
as the conclusion.
If we gave the author of the second passage one chance to get to the
point, we’d see that the bolded sentence is not that
argument’s main point. A listener leaving the conversation only with the
knowledge “Nunez is the best” is not going to do anything about postponing
the awards ceremony, which is, after all, the thing that second author is
after. No doubt he’d rather have the ceremony postponed, without anyone
knowing why, than convince a listener of Nunez’s
superiority and yet have nothing done about rescheduling the ceremony. Given
one chance to convey his thought, he’d have to go with “postpone the
ceremony.” The fact that the rest of the argument answers the question
“Why should we do this?” further confirms that the last
sentence in argument two is the main point, and the rest merely evidence for
it.
Use the Clues.
Speaking of evidence, you should stay attuned to evidence keywords
such as because, for, and since. Passage
ideas highlighted by these words usually denote support for
the main point and thus won’t be reflected in the correct choice. The test
makers usually don’t give away the main point by prefacing it with common
conclusion signal words (e.g., consequently, so, therefore,
and thus), but if they do, take careful note.
Also keep an eye out for contrast signal words such as but
and however, which tell you some sort of shift is upcoming.
Often, the new idea is part of the main point.
Take Care of Business.
Now perhaps you’re wondering about the assumptions underlying the
second argument. Don’t! That’s not your job here. Does the author assume
that the ceremony is currently scheduled to take place on Friday? Yeah—but
so what? Does he presuppose the principle that top employees should be
present at awards ceremonies? Sure—but who cares? The reasoning in Main
Point questions may be valid, and it may not—but that doesn’t
matter. Don’t get distracted by logical nuances—simply look to
extract the major point the author is trying to make.
There’s no need to evaluate that point; save that for
Critique questions.
Tackling Main Point Answer Choices
Hear Ye, Hear Ye . . .
The correct choice to a Main Point question should make for a decent
headline if the passage were a newspaper article. It may not be as exciting
and snappy as a typical headline, but the idea contained in it should
represent the essence of the passage well enough to be condensed into
headline material. If, on the other hand, an answer choice doesn’t even seem
like it belongs in the same article as the passage text, chances are that
choice is wrong.
Spot the Traps.
Some wrong choices in this question type speak to evidence for the
conclusion instead of the conclusion itself; others try to blow up a minor
side issue into the central focus of the passage. The latter we’ve already
dubbed Overreach choices, and don’t be surprised to see other classic wrong
choice types you’ve encountered to this point such as Twister, Irrelevant,
and Opposite.
That should be more than enough to get you started. Review the Main
Point Battleplan, and then see how you do with “Earthquake
Theory.”
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Main Point Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. When asked for the main
point, the conclusion, or what the author is arguing overall, prepare for
picking out the dominant idea the author is trying to convey by focusing on
the structure of the passage, not the merits of the reasoning.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Consider each statement in
the context of the overall argument. Imagine the author had one sentence to
express the gist of the argument—what would it be? Stay alert to signal word
clues that might help you to separate the passage’s evidence from its
conclusion, and don’t be distracted by whether the argument is valid—that’s
not your concern.
Step 3: Work the Choices. Use the “headline test” to see
if the choice you favor would serve as a proper synopsis of the argument.
Spot the traps to dismiss common wrong answer types. Remember that anything
that leads to a larger issue cannot be the main point. The
correct choice should have a satisfying, “end of story” feel to it; settle
for nothing less.
11. Role (Construction)
In Role questions, you’re asked to determine the function of a specific
passage element—that is, you’re directed right to a specific part of the passage
and asked to figure out what purpose that thing serves. Here are some strategies
to help you handle these.
Tackling the Role Argument
Know the Common Roles.
You may be asked the role of a claim, statement, assertion,
proposition, or some other aspect of the argument. It may seem wide open,
but there are only so many functions that a statement can serve in the
context of a Logical Reasoning passage. Here are some examples of the kinds
of roles you should expect to see:
- Conclusion. Same as Main Point: the overriding idea that the author is attempting to establish.
- Intermediate Conclusion. A bit trickier. An “intermediate” conclusion is something that results from information in one part of the passage but itself leads to a larger point that the author is trying to make.
- Evidence. As we’ve seen many times before, evidence is any point the author uses to back up his or her main conclusion.
- Specific Support. Some passage elements are used to specifically help the author achieve what he or she is trying to accomplish. While this falls under the general category of “evidence,” it’s a special kind of evidence that may be described in a very specific way in a correct answer choice. For example, instead of saying “it is evidence for the main conclusion,” a correct choice may say “it provides a reason for questioning the claim that early dinosaurs were water dwellers.” Try to get as specific as possible when evaluating the role of the statement in question.
- Example/Illustration. Some passage elements are included primarily to provide examples or illustrations of the point the author is trying to make.
- Refutation. Some passage elements are included to refute or counter some other claim or position cited in the passage.
This list is not all-inclusive; there are other roles you may come
across in the course of your preparation. The more roles you’re familiar
with, the greater the chance that you’ll breeze through any Role question
they throw at you.
Go with What You Know.
Role questions tie in quite nicely with Main Point questions, since
both types require you to figure out what the various statements are doing
in the passage. In Main Point questions, you take it upon yourself to
determine the function of each element of the passage so that you can
isolate the conclusion, the passage’s overriding idea, from its supporting
evidence. Since conclusion and evidence are two of the common functions
tested in Role questions, use everything you learned in the Main Point
discussion to help you determine whether
the featured statement in Role questions fits in either of these main
categories.
Tackling Role Answer Choices
Predict and Scan.
If, as recommended above, you use what you know to determine that the
statement in question functions as the argument’s evidence or conclusion,
make that your prediction and scan for it among the choices. If you believe
the featured statement is evidence for the conclusion, scan for that. If you
think it’s the passage’s conclusion itself, scan for that. Logical Reasoning
choices are written to sound very convincing, so if you know what you’re
looking for, respect no choice until it matches the thought you have in
mind.
Spot the Traps.
In questions in which the featured statement is not
the passage’s evidence or conclusion, the test makers often include evidence
and conclusion answer choices to distract you from the actual role the
statement plays. It’s tempting to choose one of these choices because
evidence and conclusion are the most well-known features of arguments. If
you become adept at dissecting passages and locating the actual evidence and
conclusion, you may be able to make some quick kills when the featured
statement serves a different function. Also, beware of Irrelevant and
Twister choices, which pop up in Role questions too. Anything that doesn’t
pertain to the passage as a whole can’t pertain to an individual part of the
passage, and anything that distorts the passage’s information can’t be
correct, either.
Now analyze the Battleplan, and then give “Homelessness and Profit
Motive” a whirl.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
NOTE: The following practice question is from an actual LSAT exam and could not be included in the online version of this book.
Role Battleplan
Step 1: Grill the Interrogator. Role question stems are
recognizable by the words “role” or “function” or the phrase “figure in the
argument in which one of the following ways?” When you see any of these
things, orient your thinking toward the issue of why the
element in question is included in the passage. Take special note of the
featured element before moving on to the passage.
Step 2: Attack the Passage. Focus on the relevant element
in the context of the passage’s other statements. Ask yourself: “Is this the
conclusion?” If not, “Is this evidence for the conclusion?” If not, check to
see if it serves one of the other common roles listed or some other role you’ve encountered in a practice question.
Get a general sense, but rest assured that the choices will give you ideas
to test.
Step 3: Work the Choices. If you’ve determined that the
element in question is the conclusion or evidence for it, scan for the
choice that reflects that. If not, scan for evidence and conclusion choices
anyway so you can cross those off. Eliminate Twister
choices that distort the featured element’s relation to other elements of
the passage or that focus on issues irrelevant to the passage entirely.
Narrow the choices down in this manner, and then rigorously test the ones
that remain to find the one that best accords with the element cited in the
stem.
|
|
 |
