Chap 8

Question 1

What does CLIR mean?

Answer 1

C= Controversy (Debate) L= Loophole (Argument) I= Inference (Premise Set) R= Resolution (Paradox)

Question 2

Steps in breaking down an argument.

**p.225

Answer 2

Step 1: Outline.

• (Bracket and Label the stimulus’ argument parts)

Step 2: Categorize.

• Is the stimulus a Debate, Arugument, Premise Set, or Paradox.
  
  • Tag the stimulus with a D, A, PS or PX accorddingly.

Step 3: Design.

• Debate →Controversy
• Arugument→Loophole
• Premise Set→Inference
• Paradox→Resolution

Question 3

Name the four stimulus types and give a discription for each.

Answer 3

1. Debate (D): Two people speaking.
2. Argument (A): Conclusion supported by premise.
3. Premise set (PS): No conclusion; Premises do not contradict one another.
4. Paradox: (PX) No conclusion; Presmises contradict on another.

Question 4

How to tell if an Stimulus is one of the four Stimulus types.

Answer 4

Arguments:

• If the stimulus contains a conclusion it’s an argument.
• Stealth Arguments:
  
  • If the stimulus looks like this:
    
    • Principle: Do stuff this way:
    • Application: Ediie di stuff this way:
      
      • Bracket of the _Principle as presmis_e and Apllication as the conclusion. These are stealth aruguments. They seem speacial becasue of the weird colons, but the principle is always the evidence given to justify the particular application. You can loophole them like normal argument.

Premise Set:

• If your stimulus does not contain a conclusion, it’s either a premise set or a Paradox. If the premise do not contradict one another, the stimulus is a Premis Set.
• Fill in the blank:
  
  • If the stimulus contains a blank at the end, categorize the stimulus as a Premise Set. The question will always ask you to fill in the blank.
• Remember your Premise Set are always begging to be added up into an inference.
• When you read a Premise Set on the LSAT, start looking for the interlocking point between premises the word or concept that’s repeated multipal times.

Paradox:

• If your stimulus does not contain a conclusiojn, its either a Premise set or a Paradox.
• If the the premises contradict one another, the stimulus is a Paradox.
• Paradox crash your brain. Somthing appears to be wrong as soon as you encounter them. They play with your expectations. The first premise leads you one direction…. and the secnd premise goes in the opposite direction. The first premise gives you evidence indication that things are bad, and yet they somehow end up good. Or the first premise gives you evidence that things are great, and everything turns out poorly. Paradoxes make the wolrd of the stimulus make no sense.
• Examples:
  
  • Contradictory Premise 1:
    
    • Cassandra is an incopetent salewomen.
  • Contradiction Premise 2:
    
    • Cassandra got the highest bonus in her sales group.
• A common Paradox cinstrustion involes the first premise mentioning that a given object has a value that is going up-down (sea-urchin demand is going up) or has a high/low value to begin with (Cassandra is an incompetent saleswomen)
  
  • We expect this object to have more attributes in line with this inital characterization. We expect the fact that Cassandra is an incompetent salewoman to lead to other negative values, like getting fired or being paid less than others. its jarring when the stimulus abruptly switches tracks. This Jarring feeling can lead you to quick Paradox identification.

Debate:

• If your stimulus has two speakers then it is an debate. Debates dont require much theory to identify, since you can literally see that there are two names listed with colons after each of them.
• Debates are often constructed with a long statement from the first speaker that serves as an introduction to the issue at hand. Then second speaker following with a cryptic premise or two. The example above falls into category; notice how the second speaker doesnt conclude anything on their own.
• The second speaker always means to finsh their point, but they act alot like we do in real life. When someone says something you think is dumb, you probably resond with, “yeah, but… {inconvenient fact for them}.”We dont bother adding “therefore” and concluding when we object. We just offer the fact that we think contradicts something they said ort assumed. This is natural, and it’s exactly what the second speaker is doing in LSAT Debates. Our task as LSAT test takers is to target the second speaker’s objection back up to the first speaker.
• When you read Debate on the LSAT, the goal to connect the two speakers to one another. So the lack of information from the second speaker can be vexing. How can you see how the two speakers connect when the second speaker isnt giving you much information? You have to use your Inference skills to complete the second speaker’s though for them..

Question 5

Designing Loopholes Re Arguments. (p.231)

Answer 5

Step 1:

• Identify you conclusion.

Step 2:

• Sat “This conclusion si not Necessarliy true”…. What if …“Finish this sentence with a posibilty that destroy the conclusion.

**To design your Loophole, ask yourslef, “what if..” and complete your thought with the most powerful worst-case scenario for the conclsuion.

Question 6

Designing an inference:

Answer 6

• Whenever you detect a Premise Set, design an inference.
• Inferences are super boring.
• Remember Inferences are very provable.
  
  • All you have to do is connect the differrent oarts of the stimulus to one another and you will be creating Inferences in no time.
    
    • **Find that interlocking point and run with it.
  • Stick to the exact words of the stimulus when you design Inferences. They’re laying out the pieces; just put them together.

Question 7

Designing Controversies

Answer 7

• The controversy is what the two speakers are disagreeing over. It’s the point they’re debating. One of them agrees with it and the other disagrees. Controversies are most easily phrased as “whether” statements. The two speakers are disagreeing over whether something is true. Phrasing it this way will pinpoint exactly what the two speakers disagree about.
• Link the two speakers:
  
  • Take an inference from the second speaker’s statements.
    
    • Add up the second speaker’s premise (and conclusion, if there is one) to connect them to the first speaker. This is your Second Speaker Inference.
  • Stick a “Wheather” in front of your Second Speaker Inference and smooth out the language.
• The tide of the Debate rises and falls on the second speaker. This is where the money is in Debates. Controversies are about disagreement, and in order to disagree, you must have something on the table to disagree with. The first speaker puts this information on the table, and the second speaker is the one doing the disagreeing. That’s why we take a Second Speaker Inference. It’s only natural to focus on the person who is actively disagreeing when designing a Controversy.
  
  • The problem with the second speaker is that they aren’t always clear with how their statements relate to the first speaker. In designing the Controversy, we need make the second speaker’s point more explicit. We need to link them back up to the first speaker to figure out what the two speakers are disagreeing about.

Question 8

Designing Controversy Examples

Answer 8

Question 9

What are some pro-tips in designing Controversy

Answer 9

• Always make your Controversy specific.
  
  • You cont just say they disagree about whether the first speaker is right or wrong. While that may be true, it is not helpful as an analytical tool.
• Don’t assume the second speaker is always disagreeing with the first speaker’s conclusion.
  
  • This is not even close to true all the time. Think amount if you were in a Debate. Would you always straight up disagree with your opponent’s conclusion, or would you focus on taking out one of your opponent’s key premise? Taking out those premises leaves your opponent with no leg stand on.
• Always use background information from the first speaker for your Second Speaker Inference.

Question 10

How to Shorthand your Controversy.

Answer 10

Here is a shorthand for marking the Controversy

1. Make the Second Speaker Inference. A fair amount of time, this Inference will just be NOT {somthing the first person just said}.
2. Bracket the offending the statement from the first speaker.
3. Draw a line straight to it from the second speaker.
4. X out that line to note the disagreement.

Question 11

Designing Resolutions

Answer 11

• Whenever you detect a Paradox a Resolution.
  
  • Resolutions return a sense oforder to Paradoxs.
  • If the the Resolution has been provided initially the stimulus would not be a Paradox at all.
  • In designing your resolution, ask yourself one question:
    
    • What would make this all make sense?
      
      • Sense is your mission. When you’re designing Resolutions, dont be afraid to go broke.
      • All the resolution has to acommplish is sense.

Question 12

How to design a Resolution?

Answer 12

• The Resoluition Bridge:
  
  1. Split up the two contradictory premises and put a Resoluiton in the Middle.
     
     1. PREMISE 1, but RESOLUTION, so PREMISE 2.
  2. Fill in the Resolution with somthing with that makes PREMISE 1 naturally lead to PREMISE 2.
• The Resolution Bridge transforms the Pardox into an Argument, which should be much more familer to you. These transformed Paradox dont have to yield 100% vaild arguments, but they fo have to make sense. You dont have to prove that Premise 1 necessarily leads to Premise 2, just that it’s not totally outside the realm of possibilty.