General Strategy Flashcards
What game plan strategy should you turn to if you’re down to two (2) answer choices in a flaw question & you’re stuck?
- Make sure BOTH answers are true (check logical force)
- Make sure it’s actually an issue (ask: “If I fixed that, would that make the argument better?”
- Check your conclusion
- Project forward.
Complete the following statement:
When authors use comparison or analogies to make their argument we have to ask whether _ _ _ _.
The things being compared are “relevantly similar” or “meaningfully different”
Explain the game plan to follow
When authors use comparison or analogies to make their argument in strengthen/ weaken/ necessary assumption
strengthen: find the answer that provides more sameness.
weaken: find the answer that points to important distinctions to weaken.
necessary assumption: sometimes you are forced to just complete the analogy.
What is the strategy for strengthen principle questions?
link evidence to judgement
* Be precise with judgement, get the judgment just right*
If premise then Judgement
Complete the statement
In MBT our AC is not going to be explicitly stated in our stimulus but _ _ _ _.
It will have the exact same scope, the exact same language & the exact same subject.
Define & give two (2) examples of
Correlated
definition: two things happening together.
Ex: Coincided
associated.
Define
Vague
using a word more than once, but slightly changing the meaning.
What are the three (3) ways to weaken a causal conclusion?
(expl. the outcome of each)
- same cause no effect (breaks the pattern)
- no cause same effect ( control group failing)
- identify an alternate cause.
What is evidence?
Facts &/or data that can be used to support a claim.
(verifiable through testing & observations)
Are assumptions considered evidence? Why or why not?
assumptions are NOT considered evidence.
- they are NOT verified or proven so they can’tbe used as a reliable soure to establish the truth.
What is an assumption?
Something that must be true in order for the conclusion to be proven by the premises BUT was never actually stated in the argument.
— “invisible glue the argument needs to connect the premises to the conclusion”
-usually opinions &/or beliefs that are accpeted as true without evidence.
- They are NOT veified or proven.
In logical reasoning, if our job is to be critical, the qualifiers in the conclusion will almost always _ _ _ . If a conclusion says something must be, expect that _ _ _ _, and if a conclusion claims something is most likely, expect _ _ _ _.
blank #1: be wrong
blank #2: it wont be
blank #3: that it won’t be
When a question asks you to pick between alternatives (ex: siding with one side you need to _ _ _ _.)
Know the criteria for the decision.
Ex: one alternative being more important than the other
POV you just ID QT as a MBT. What are you reading the stimulus for?
Reading for:
1. conditional lang
2. overlapping lang
3. strong lang/weak lang
overlapping language:
-same subject matter.
-same pieces of information but doesnt have conditional phrases (look for comonality)
- strong language.
Fill in the blank
To resolve a paradox, it is important to identify the two sides of the paradox & brainstrom what could account for the discrepency .
Often, such a resolution can be hinted at by _ _ _ _.
blank #1: a new term showing up on one side of the paradox.
Fill in the blank:
The _ _ _ _ closest to the conclusion is usually _ _ _ _. Especially if there’s _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _.
- what’s the significance behind #4*?
1. premise
#2. the MOST important
#3. a connector word/
#4. connective tissue: shifts- indicates a change in direction so we gotta think “where did we come from to where are we going” -> where we are going to is the most important
What are the patterns to recognize for resolve/ explain questions & what do you need to anticipate for each?
1. Group or study similar but different end results: anticipate: Hidden relevant difference a.k.a 2 things being compared that are not comparable
anticipate: hidden negative
anticipate: hidden positive
anticipate: alt cause. need to be exact
What do common terms dictate?
There’s probably a transitive structure being created.
what is the game plan for ~MBT principle
(given principles as AC)
ID principle being used in stimulus, which conforms to the generality & treat like a ~MBT but anticipationis a bit more broad.
* Zoom out of the people, Zoom out of the subject They are a bit more broad.*
ID the type of question
Which one of the following if true, most helps to account for _ _ _ _?
& what is the key indicator?
explain question
Key Indicator: helps to account for
True or False
In a strengthen question where you’ve identified a causal relationship and the conclusiom argues against an alt. cause an answer that further eliminates the alt cause specified in the conclusion as a cause will work. aka be the correct answer.
true
How can you tell if the past will or will not affect the future?
& define the two circumstances that are being presented.
- mostly depends if events described are dependent or independent.
independent: past events have no effects on the future
dependent: past events do affect the future.
In a disagree question, sometimes you are going to be asked to probe a little deeper… How do you go about doing so?
(give an example)
Ask: “what does it mean for x’s argument if we believe y’s point is true?
ex: y’s point can undermine x’s premise in the argument, then the conclusion for x’s argument cannot be fairly drawn
Which reading frame do you need to apply to the following questions:
1.main point
2.describe
3.role
4.parallel
5.agree/disagree
reading for structure: (mp, describe, role, parallel, agree/disagree)
- sure to get a whole argument (premise & concl).
- As you are reading take notice of the structural elements that are happening in the argument.
Ask: 1. what kind of conclusion are you getting?
2. what kind of evidence are you getting?
What are the three (3) basic flavors answer choices to role questions come in?
1. premise (evidence)
#2. Subsidiary conclusion
#3. Main conclusion
What is the game plan for ~MBT apply the principle above?
diagram the principle + see which one best fits the sufficient & necessary
In an LR stimulus when you are given a principle + application of said principle
what is your game plan?
- diagram the given princile
- depending on what the prompt tells you/ task - you are going to ask “ is the application missing any part of the principle that by having it will complete task of the prompt?”
ex: strengthen: in order to apply to strengthen we need sufficient - so thats what we would be looking for.
Explain the comma tricks
a. one comma
b. two commas
c. three commas
a: commas indicate something on either side is an optional element. You just need to identify which one it is.
** sometimes parts of the sentence are BOTH core & Optional.
b+c: “middle out” see if the middle piece can be a complete sentence by itself.
yes- both outer pieces are optional
no- you can’t delete & 2 outer pieces will be the core.
** 3+ commas: take a sentence apart 2 commas at a time (reusing commas to create pairs as needed)**
When solving implication family questions and you see an answer choice with causality you want to do what?
BEWARE
causation is very hard to support UNLESS it is explcitly stated.
- take a second to make sure that the stimulus did in fact introduce causality BEFORE selecting answer choice that introduces causality.
Describe the following relationships
is v. ought
descriptive v. prescriptive
- another way to think about it is
descriptive v. prescriptive
is v. ought
observing v. judging
describing the v. injecting judgement
way something is or reviewing your values about the world.
What type of question is this?
Of the following, which one constitutes the strongest objection to the reasoning in the argument?
Flaw question
the key was “objection”
ID the question type + specify your reasoning
The conclusion of the argument is strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?
strengthen
Reasoning: the prompt says the conclusion will be “strongly supported” not “properly inferred”, “logically valid”, or any of our sufficient assumption phrases (MBT) so the CA does not need to make an argument perfectly valid . Just add support.
The key to a disagree question lies in _ _ _ _. So you gotta think _ _ _ _.
blank #1: Figuring out where the opinions of the two speakers diverge.
blank #2: what do these speakers actually have an opinion about? i.e. getting the claim just right.
In inference questions
Just because something is bad/ has unsupported tendencies that doesn’t mean _ _ _ _. Except when _ _ _ _.
blank 1: we can infer that we should change something or should do something about it.
blank 2: We need to have prescriptive language “should”, “needs” in the stimulus for us to have the answer choice have a proposed change.
Fill in the blank:
To find the answer most strongly supported by the stimulus _ _ _ _ .
it helps to look at the relationship between statements and identify any strong statements.
what is the tackle strategy for a SA with no diagraming.
(only one/ no conditional statements or overlapping language at all)
Look for the answer that puts the premise as a sufficient condition & the conclusion as the necessary condition.
premise -> conclusion
What is the “bridge” method for SA & NA questions Diagraming
1. Id new term: where is it in the conclusion?
a. Necessary: attach to the end of the conditional premise * or its cp*
b. Sufficient: attach to the beginning of the conditional premise b/c it’s in the sufficient spot or its cp
c. No new term in the conclusion but need to link premise in some way. (usually along the lines of … If premise then conclusion…
ID SA or NA
Gets you across the finish line
SA
ID the following question type
The argument leads to the conclusion that
main point
What is a valid argument?
argument where if the premises are true then the conclusion will necessarily follow. The conclusion can be properly inferred.
Only valid if and only if the conlcusion MUST BE TRUE based on the premise(s).
What are some features to look out for when trying to identify the main conclusion?
- Paying attention to expressions of author’s opinion
- judgement about something: good, bad, right
- reccomendation: should, should not
- prediction: ex: world would probably end 2021
- hypothesis or proposed theory: ex: alcohol must be distracting from performace of the maze. - Conclusion & Premise Indicators:
** but remember: key words don’t mean that the line right after it is the main conlcusion b/c it could very much be a sub conclusion. - Shift in attitude or direction (but, although, however) ** remember: are good indicators of the author’s point but do not guarantee the main concluison*
What is the game plan to follow if you’re stuck between two supported answers in a mainpoint question?
ask yourself:
- Why the author thinks the statement is true. If you can’t point to a line in the stimulus as to why that statement is true then it is not a conclusion& eliminate it.
- If you can point to a line in the stimulus as to why the author thinks the statement is true then ask if it supports another statement if yes: its a subsidiary conclusion and you need to get rid of it.
Is the second speaker making an argument? Why or Why not?
Z: The term “fresco” refers to paint that has been applied to wet plaster. Once dried, a fresco indelibly preserves the paint that a painter has applied in this way. Unfortunately, additions known to have been made by later painters have obscured the original fresco work done by Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel. Therefore, in order to restore Michelangelo’s SIstine Chapel paintings to the appearance that Michelangelo intended them to have, everything except the original frescowork must be stripped away.
S: But it was extremely common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos had dried.
No, S is not presenting a premise and conclusion (argument) he is simply raising a new consideration (fact). So there is no argument being presented from S.
