Logical Reasoning Flashcards

Question

**Example #6** ## Footnote Journalist: To reconcile the need for profits sufficient to support new drug research with the moral imperative to provide medicines to those who most need them but cannot afford them, some pharmaceutical companies feel justified in selling a drug in rich nations at one price and in poor nations at a much lower price. But this practice is unjustified. A nation with a low average income may still have a substantial middle class better able to pay for new drugs than are many of the poorer citizens of an overall wealthier nation. Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the journalist’s reasoning? People who are ill deserve more consideration than do healthy people, regardless of their relative socioeconomic positions. Wealthy institutions have an obligation to expend at least some of their resources to assist those incapable of assisting themselves. Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one’s needs rather than on characteristics of the society to which one belongs. The people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than do the people in poorer nations. Unequal access to health care is more unfair than an unequal distribution of wealth.

Answer 1

**Explanation #6** ## Footnote The journalist states that pharmaceutical companies have both a need for profits to support future research and a moral obligation to provide medicines to those who most need them and cannot afford them. In order to balance these requirements they have adopted a practice of selling drugs at lower prices in poorer countries. The journalist’s conclusion is that this practice is unjustified. To support this claim, the journalist points out that different individuals in the same nation have differing abilities to pay, but this consideration does not, by itself, establish that the pharmaceutical company’s policy is unjustified. The question asks you to choose the principle that would most help to justify the journalist’s reasoning. The principle stated in response (C) connects the question of whether special consideration is deserved to personal, rather than societal, needs. The pharmaceutical companies’ practice provides special consideration based on the characteristics of one’s society, and not based on one’s personal needs. As a result, according to this principle, the practice tends to deny special consideration to some who deserve it (the poorer citizens of wealthier nations), while giving special consideration to some who do not deserve it (the middle class citizens of poorer nations). In this way the practice is failing to meet the pharmaceutical companies’ obligation to provide special consideration for those who most need the drugs and cannot afford them, and, in giving undeserved special consideration, failing to generate income that could have been used to support new drug research. The principle in (C) thereby provides strong support for the journalist’s reasoning that the pharmaceutical companies’ practice is unjustified. Thus, (C) is the correct response. The principle stated in response (A) applies to balancing the consideration deserved by ill people and healthy people. However, the pharmaceutical company’s practice, and the journalist’s argument against that practice, concerns only ill people (that is, people who need drugs). As a result, response (A) is not relevant to the journalist’s reasoning. The principle stated in (B) requires that wealthy institutions use some of their resources to aid those in need. This tends to affirm the pharmaceutical companies’ moral imperative to provide medicines to those who need them but cannot afford them. However, this principle gives no support to the journalist’s reasoning, which contends that the pharmaceutical companies’ pricing policy is not justified by this moral imperative. The principle stated in (D) that people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than those in poorer nations, is a principle that tends to support the companies’ practice, because the companies’ practice is one that tends to lessen the health care disparities between wealthy and poorer nations. For this reason, (D) actually runs counter to the journalist’s reasoning. The principle stated in (E) concerns whether an unequal distribution of health care or an unequal distribution of wealth is more unfair. However, this is a different issue than the one the journalist is addressing. Response (E) is thus not relevant to the journalist’s reasoning. This was an easy question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

Answer 2

**Explanation #7** ## Footnote This question asks you to identify the option containing information that makes the conclusion of the argument follow logically. The conclusion of the argument is that it is false that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative act. To draw this conclusion logically, one only needs to show at least one contemporary poet who is writing formal poetry and is not thereby performing a politically conservative act. Showing such an instance would provide a counterexample to the claim attributed to the critics, demonstrating that the critics’ generalization is false. The premise given is that there are two contemporary and politically progressive feminist poets who write formal poetry—Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker. If no one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act, and Peacock and Hacker are politically progressive, it follows logically that neither is capable of performing a politically conservative act. Since both write formal poetry, their writing of formal poetry cannot be a politically conservative act. This shows that one can write formal poetry without performing a politically conservative act, so (C) is the correct response. If it is true that no one who is a feminist is politically conservative, as response (A) says, we can conclude that Peacock and Hacker, who are identified as being feminists, are not politically conservative. But we already knew this, as they were also identified as being politically progressive. As long as people who are not themselves politically conservative are capable of performing politically conservative acts, the question of whether it is possible for someone to write formal poetry without performing a politically conservative act remains unanswered. (A) is thus incorrect. If no poet who writes unrhymed and unmetered poetry is politically conservative, as response (B) indicates, this tells us little about Peacock and Hacker, whose poetry, we are told, is almost exclusively formal. Insofar as (B) may indicate that Peacock and Hacker are not politically conservative (because they write some poetry that is not both rhymed and metered), we already knew this, as they are identified as being politically progressive. Since the argument works by presenting Peacock and Hacker as counterexamples to the claim that to write formal poetry is to perform a politically conservative act, (B) contributes nothing in the way of additional support for the conclusion. Response (D) says that anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes poetry that is politically conservative. However, to make the conclusion of the argument follow logically, one must show that some contemporary poets who write formal poetry are sometimes not performing a politically conservative act. The information in (D) is not applicable to this question. Response (E) concerns the effects of the content of a poet’s work on determining the political consequences of the work. However, the question that must be answered is whether any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative act, not what the consequences of that poetry might be. The question of whether writing a particular poem is a politically conservative act is different from the question of what that poem’s political consequences will be. Moreover, because the content of neither Peacock’s nor Hacker’s work has been specified, (E) does not even allow us to draw a conclusion about the political consequences of their work. This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

Answer 3

**Explanation #8** ## Footnote This question presents an analysis of a situation and asks you to select, from among the options, another situation for which the analysis is appropriate. The analysis states that the two objectives described in the original situation are related in such a way that more success in the first objective, the reduction of driving, will result in less success in the second, a reduction in the price of electricity. To see this, suppose that the gasoline taxes mentioned in the passage prove successful in inducing people not to drive. This would mean that people would have a diminished need to purchase gasoline, since they do not drive as much. Since less gasoline is being purchased, there is less revenue from taxes on gasoline purchases. There is therefore less revenue from the gasoline tax with which to subsidize electricity. With less of a subsidy, there will be less reduction in the prices charged for electricity. Among the options, (E) is the one that presents a situation that fits the analysis in the same way. The more motorists there are who begin to use other routes, thus reducing bridge traffic, the less toll money there will be for the new bridge fund. Thus (E) is the correct response. Response (A) is incorrect. Two devices are named, late fees and reminders, but they share just one objective, which is described in two ways: to get “borrowers to return books promptly” and to “reduce the incidence of overdue books.” Success in one is success in the other. Response (B) is incorrect. This situation has two objectives: to limit the use of overnight delivery service and to offset the extra expense of the overnight delivery still requested. However, these objectives are related in such a way that success in the first, a reduction in overnight delivery, would contribute to success in the second by lowering the extra expenses incurred by the service. Response (C) is incorrect. We cannot infer that more success in achieving the first objective—getting park users to help keep up the park—will cause less success in the second objective—keeping the fees low. It is conceivable that success in the former would enable the fees to be lowered; after all, if there were enough park users paying the fees (i.e., contributing to the park’s upkeep), then the park management would not have to charge a high fee—fifteen park users paying $1.00 generates more revenue than one park user paying $10.00. Furthermore, there is nothing in the passage that functions like the statement in (C) that management does not finance any new projects from admission fees. Response (D) is incorrect. The two objectives in this situation, sparing customers an inconvenience and augmenting restaurant workers’ wages, are not necessarily related in such a way that more success in the former would cause less success in the latter. Adding a service charge might very well augment the restaurant workers’ wages more than they would be augmented if no service charge is added, if the proceeds from the service charge are greater than what the workers would have received from individual tips. This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

Answer 4

**Explanation #9** ## Footnote This question asks you to identify the response that does most to explain an apparent discrepancy presented in the passage. The first step, then, is to determine what this discrepancy is. The passage notes the Romans’ extensive use of water power in some outlying parts of their empire, but in regions dominated by large cities, it says, they did without water power. Given the benefits of water power, an adequate response must help answer the question of why ancient Romans did not use water power in regions dominated by large cities when they had a demonstrated ability to do so. Response (E) helps to answer that question. It presents an undesirable consequence that would have followed from the use of water power in heavily populated regions: social unrest due to significant loss of livelihood. By doing this, (E) identifies a negative aspect of water power use in heavily populated areas, and that gives a reason not to use it in regions dominated by large cities. Thus, (E) is the correct response. Response (A) is incorrect. Rather than explaining the puzzling situation, it merely describes the ancient Romans’ ability to supply water over distances. If this has any bearing at all on the issue of water power, it would be to remove one possible impediment to the use of water power in regions dominated by large cities; it would not give a reason that the Romans did without it in those regions. Response (B) is incorrect. While it speaks of the areas where water power was not used, which would include the regions dominated by large cities, it indicates the natural water supply in those areas was substantial although seasonally variable. This gives a reason to expect the use of water power in regions dominated by large cities, not a reason the Romans did without it in those regions. Response (C) is incorrect. By noting that water power was relatively vulnerable to sabotage, (C) presents a possible reason to avoid the use of water power in important regions, but (C) also undermines that possible reason by describing how easily any damage could be repaired. So (C) does nothing to explain the puzzling situation. Response (D) indicates that “more traditional” energy sources were used in areas without water power, which would include the regions dominated by large cities. This may help explain how these regions got along without water power—the use of traditional sources prevented them from being entirely without energy—but it adds little to our overall understanding, since we could already presume that these regions had energy sources. The fact that traditional sources of energy were employed in these regions does not explain why water power was not employed there, and that question would have to be addressed in order to explain the discrepancy in the Romans’ use of water power. Response (D) is thus incorrect. This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

Answer 5

**Assumption vs. Inference** It’s very easy to get confused about what we’re looking for in LR, because we have a whole bunch of different tasks that all use similar skills in slightly different ways. One of the big issues many students continue to run into is the difference between assumption and inference questions. First of all, assumption questions provide us with an argument (containing evidence and conclusion) in the stimulus, but the author always assumes that s/he can just stroll from the given evidence information to the conclusion. On the LSAT, there is always something missing, something that the author does not realize should be there in order to get from evidence to the conclusion, illustrated by this excellent art: Inference questions, on the other hand, are not argument-based. Standard inference stimuli give us a set of facts (or things we accept as facts) and ask us what must be true based on them. Think of it as a reverse-argument question; finding something that must be true based on facts, without falling into the faults we see in assumption questions (going outside the scope, too extreme, irrelevance, etc.). We are not required to use every fact provided, but we must make an airtight case (no chasm with scary wolves at the bottom) between the facts in the stimulus and the right answer. The question we ask of each answer choice is no less than “does it HAVE to be true based on what we know?”

Answer 6

LSAT assumption questions are the backbone of the LSAT Logical Reasoning section– the argument principles underlying assumption questions form the basis of the whole shebang! It makes sense that getting really, really good at assumptions will get us to a very, very good place on test day, so make an adjustment to your strategy now that will rock your logical reasoning world! Let’s start by identifying the conclusion and evidence to the following faux-LSAT argument-based question, and then predict the assumption. Go ahead and take a moment before continuing to read to break this baby down: The Interview is two hours long, and I’ve been saving it until I could watch the whole movie with no interruptions. Thus, it must be true that I can watch the movie right now. First, the breakdown: Conclusion: I can watch the movie right now. Evidence: Movie is two hours long, and I saved it until I could watch the whole thing. Second, the assumption: Assumption: I have time to watch the whole thing right now. Now, if you’ve got this far, excellent. But there is something we can do on test day that we could not do in the above argument, because we don’t have a question stem, and that is to differentiate between two different kind of assumption questions. Each of them operate using the same basic principles, but their execution is slightly different– and realizing the difference will make you a much stronger LSAT test-taker, because it essentially gives you direct access to the test-maker’s point of view and how they put together the Logical Reasoning section as a whole. So, let’s give this whole situation the LSAT expert eyeball, and remember to apply these methods all the time from here on out. If this were a necessary assumption question… Question Stem: would include words like “relies”, “depends”, “requires”, etc., indicating that the answer choice MUST BE THERE for the author to draw his conclusion Task: Once we break apart the argument the way we did above, we need to figure out what the author requires to draw the conclusion. Think of the necessary assumption like this: If the conclusion is true –\> necessary assumption must be true Notice that the above is formal logic; to really destroy the LSAT, you will need to be conversant in formal logic, and not just in the obvious moments. Conditional logic underpins a lot of the test, so ch-ch-check those skills out and know them frontwards, backwards, sidewards (and any other -wards you can think of). Prediction: Think about what you need– you can’t get into what could be, just the bare minimum of what is necessary. For instance, check out this question and set of answers (just three, for our purposes here) for The Interview argument: Which of the following assumptions does the author’s argument require? A) I have at least two hours open right now. B) I have three hours to kill right now. C) I always have two hours free at this time of day. All three of those answers speak to our prediction, because they give us enough time to watch the show. But only one of them MUST be true: A. The only thing that has to be true to draw the conclusion is that at least an hour is open right now. Answer Choices: As you can see above, tentative wording like “at least” or “some” is preferable to extreme wording like “always”, “never”, “must”, “will”, etc., since we are only looking for what must happen, not everything that could happen. We can also use the denial test to help us get to the right answer! How it makes you better on other questions: Necessary assumption questions are actually similar to inference questions, since both of them are asking us what must be true. although inference questions are asking us to draw a correct conclusion from given information and necessary assumptions want us to bridge a gap between given evidence and the author’s conclusion. If this were a sufficient assumption question… Question Stem: Sufficient assumption questions often involve formal logic in the stimulus, so it’s no surprise that the question stem is also often conditional: “the conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?” When we don’t see any necessary indicators in an assumption question stem, we are dealing with a sufficient assumption. Task: We untangle the argument, the same way we did above. If your formal logic sensors (as cool as they sound) have been buzzing, it’s because “sufficient assumption” already should be pushing us to thinking: If the sufficient assumption is true –\> conclusion is true So our task is to figure out which answer choice triggers the conclusion– which could be as small as the necessary assumption or much broader, because an extreme answer choice still guarantees the conclusion. If we examine the answer choices from the necessary assumption version of this question: A) I have at least two hours open right now. B) I have three hours to kill right now. C) I always have two hours free at this time of day. ALL of these answers would work for a sufficient assumption question. They all trigger the conclusion, that I can watch the movie right now. Prediction: Keep it broad, and look out for chains of conditional formal logic. Often, we see a break between the evidence formal logic and the conclusion formal logic that needs to be bridged– assumption in the house! Keep in mind how these work, and know how extreme these answers can get. Answer Choices: Extreme answers (unlike necessary assumption answer choices) are actually great for sufficient assumption questions, so target them right away. Be very wary of outside the scope answers, or answers that mis-translate formal logic. How it makes you better at other questions: Strengthen questions are essentially more specific sufficient assumption questions. The correct answer choice to a strengthen question should trigger the conclusion.

Answer 7

**1. “All I Wanna Do” (Sheryl Crow):** Like an amazing number of ’90s hits, “All I Wanna Do” employs basic conditional formal logic to achieve its ends. When Sheryl Crow tells us that all she wants to do is have fun, our LSAT-trained ears should perk right up; all is a basic sufficient condition trigger. If she wants it, then it must be fun. Likewise, Whitney Houston’s power ballad classic cover of “I Will Always Love You” says nothing more than “if me –\> love you always”, since “will” is a huge necessary clause indicator, especially in Logical Reasoning. Remember that a key to logical reasoning success is utilizing our full LSAT toolbox, including formal logic identification, translation, and contrapositive formation! Challenge: translate “The Heart Will Go On” (Celine Dion) into a conditional statement, and form the contrapositive!\* **2. “I Want It That Way” (The Backstreet Boys):** If you thought searching for authorial point of view was solely the purview of your rocking Reading Comprehension skills, then you are doing yourself a serious disservice in Logical Reasoning. The most important, foundational, all-around-the-section skill we can develop in LR is finding conclusions– without that key step, we are lost in assumption, strengthen, weaken, flaw, parallel reasoning, main point, role of a statement, and method of argument questions. So when an author goes out of their way to state that she or he thinks something, our conclusion sensors should go wild– and the Boys here are giving us a very direct statement of opinion. Next, it falls to us to figure out why (other than their record contract) these gentlemen do want it that way: the evidence the author gives as support for that conclusion. This equation forms the basis for all logical reasoning argument-based questions. Recognize explicit assertions and judgments from authors, as well as recommendations (“Don’t Speak”, says No Doubt) and formal logic-based statements (“Nothing Compares 2 U”, claims Sinead O’Connor). **3. “It’s Not Right, But It’s Okay” (Whitney Houston):** Quick! Pop quiz! What structural keyword that is ALWAYS worth circling appears in this early Whitney title? If you answered “but”, you get a bonus five hundred LSAT Monopoly dollars! Contrast is worth noting in all LSAT question types– when describing an argument in a parallel reasoning question, pulling a “must-be-true” inference out of a set of facts, or identifying the point-at-issue between two speakers, contrast keywords will always help us keep a stimulus under control– and separate the author’s opinion from the rest of the pieces or opinions presented. **4. “Unbelievable” (EMF):** You know you sing this song whenever you hear or read the word “unbelievable.” Why? Because “unbelievable” is a significant opinion keyword, and lets us know that the author is telling us something is important or emphasized out of that whole mess of “purple prose.” Those kind of content keywords are a big part of working reading comp passages effectively and efficiently, and are also a huge help in logical reasoning as we try to identify authorial opinion and grab the conclusion of an argument. **5. “Mama Said Knock You Out” (LL Cool J):** Identifying similarities and differences between opinions is an absolutely necessary skill in law school and in your future law career, so it makes sense that the LSAT would reward the ability across its sections, particularly in classic reading comp passages, comparative reading passages, and logical reasoning. ‘Who said what?’ is always a question you should be asking on the LSAT, whether it’s looking at tricky question stems (whose argument are they asking us to weaken? The author’s? Someone else’s?) or in stimulus breakdown.

Answer 8

Many test takers only quickly glance at the question stem to see what type of question the LSAT is posing… the fools! Educated test takers (present company included, of course) know that many stems contain other information vital to picking up quick points on Test Day. After all, success in LSAT reading comp is heavily dependent on your ability to be a great referent reader – to use the passage as a reference guide to help you quickly look up the answers to the questions. How do you know where to look, you may ask? That’s where question stem clues come in, you sagely reply! There are 5 different categories of stem clues; let’s take a look at each and see how to use it effectively on Test Day. 1. **Proper nouns and names:** we love these clues, because they’re capitalized and easy to find in the passage. One caveat – make sure you scan for all instances of the terms, since some proper nouns get mentioned in more than one paragraph and you have to make sure that you’re in the part relevant to that particular question. 2. **Line references:** the LSAT conveniently numbers every fifth line of the passage and often provides line references right in the question stem. While these references point you in the right general direction, don’t expect the correct answer to simply repeat what you find at that line – beware answers that simply parrot the text. Effective use of line references is all about putting the information in the context of where you found it – expect to have to read a line or two before or after the reference, or put the information in the context of the entire paragraph. 3. **Direct quotes:** some questions will directly quote part of the text (often accompanied by a helpful line reference). Since most direct quotes are extremely easy to relocate, once again you’ll have to put the quote in context. Questions will never ask what the quote says (since anyone could get those questions correct); rather, they’ll ask about why the author made that statement or howthe information fits into the broader context of the passage. 4. **Paragraph references:** these clues are more subtle, since they point you in the general direction of the answer, but not to a specific location. Accordingly, the answer may just repeat something buried in the paragraph (since you have to work to find it). However, many questions with paragraph references ask you to relate the paragraph to the overall structure of the passage – in that case you use your overall roadmap to see what role that particular paragraph is playing. 5. **Content clues:** we often see uncapitalized nouns in the question stem – words such as “critics”, “advantages” and “problems”. We can’t scan for these words as effectively as we can for proper nouns and names, but your ability to quickly relocate these clues will play a large role in your timing success on the LSAT. Since it takes more time to find these clues, the answer is often just a paraphrase of the information right around the clue. **Here’s a great guideline for working the clues:** the more overt the clue, the more work you’ll have to do once you find the right part of the passage; conversely, the more subtle the clue, the less work you’ll have to do once you decode it.

Answer 9

Logical Reasoning The method: 1. **Read the question stem.** Identify question type so you know what to do. 2. **Untangle the stimulus.** Actively engage with the stimulus– you should be circling structural keywords for EVERY question, then applying the specific method for the question type. Be consistent! 3. **Predict the answer.** You should be doing this whenever you can! This is the single biggest boost you can give to your Logical Reasoning performance. The exceptions: inference questions (without formal logic), point at issue questions, paradox questions. 4. **Find the answer choice that matches.** Notice the fourth step doesn’t say “find the answer choice”, it says find the one that matches your prediction. Many students go as far as making a prediction and then don’t use it, or forget about it after answer choice (A). Be tenacious! Hold on to your prediction, repeat it against every answer choice the same way. Reading answer choices can affect how you worded your prediction, so be strong. Don’t let them change anything you pulled from the stimulus. **The questions:** ***Assumption*** Evidence + Assumption = Conclusion is the bread and butter of LR. Remember to use keywords as well as critical thinking to locate the conclusion FIRST. Then ask “why is the conclusion true?” and identify the evidence, ignoring any filler or background. The assumption is what’s missing, what the author takes for granted in drawing his/her conclusion from the stated evidence. Remember to differentiate between Sufficient and Necessary Assumption questions. ***Strengthen/Weaken*** Again, we break the stimulus into conclusion and evidence, then predict the assumption. To strengthen the argument, you must confirm the assumption in the correct answer choices– remember that you do not have to prove the conclusion is true, just make it more likely. For weakening questions, we deny the author’s assumption in the correct answer, and make the conclusion less likely (again, don’t have to disprove it). Biggest things to keep in mind: don’t go outside the scope of the argument, and do not call evidence into question– on the LSAT, evidence is accepted as truth. ***Flaw*** The final assumption family question type is flaw. All we are doing is finding the conclusion and evidence in the stimulus, and drawing out the flawed assumption the author makes. The biggest difference between a flaw and an assumption question is that the flaws are usually described in general terms in the answer choices, so remember that if the answer choices get confusing, try to lay out the specifics of the argument against the general description in the answer choice; if something doesn’t fit, then it’s not the right answer. Memorize the common flaws you see in all assumption-based questions. ***Inference*** The biggest question type that doesn’t involve an argument-based stimulus. The biggest things to keep an eye on with inference questions include remembering the stimulus is not an argument with conclusion and evidence, so we need to inventory the information in order to find the answer. The answer to a standard inference question is something that MUST BE TRUE based on the stimulus information, so for each answer choice you should ask one question: does it have to be true? Refer back to the stimulus as often as needed, and look out for formal logic. ***Principle*** Principle questions can go one of three ways: most commonly, identify the principle, which means that we get a specific argument in the stimulus and a general principle in the answer choice. We break down the specific argument (conclusion/evidence/assumption) and then look for a general version of the assumption in the answer choices. In the second sub-group, apply the principle, we see a general principle in the stimulus, and specific situations in the answers. Pay specific attention to the question stem, since it can ask for a situation that follows OR violates the principle. Finally we have parallel principle questions. These are pretty rare, and they incorporate both of the above activities; we get a specific argument in the stimulus and specific arguments in the answer choices. We need to find the argument in the answer choices that follows the same general principle as the stimulus. On any principle question, first identify where the principle is: answer choice, stimulus, or only pulled from an argument. **Method of Argument/Role of a statement/Point at Issue/Main Point/Paradox/Parallel Reasoning** The smaller question types are not, taken individually, as important to your score as the heavy hitters mentioned above, but together they still pack a punch. Make sure you are familiar with them and know what to do with each when you encounter them. A great resource to get good at this is through timed section work– any questions? Check the above links:) **Additional note on solving:** As soon as we’ve identified the question as hinging on Assumption, we have to locate the gap by spotting the conclusion (or writer’s point) and summarizing the supporting evidence in the stimulus- think of the conclusion as “what” is being said, and the evidence is “why” the writer believes it. If we now know what and why we should ask“How?” How does the evidence reach the conclusion? How is the logic of the argument carried from the starting point to the finish line? Looking for outstanding details included in the conclusion but never mentioned in the evidence (or vice versa) can help us to deduce the assumption, that (invisible) link that connects the two.

Answer 10

**Global** The questions will ask for the big picture, whole passage point-of-view, which means they should be done first after reading the passage, fresh from mentally noting the TSPMI. As you get into more detail-oriented questions, it can be tougher to keep an eye on the passage as a whole, so get those globals first. They should be answerable from either the purpose or main idea, or if they are looking for structure, your roadmap. **Detail** Detail questions are nit picky– they are looking for small details explicitly mentioned in the passage, and they should always be researched within the passage text. Remember that you should be able to put your finger on the detail in the passage and literally match it up to the right answer. **Inference** The mother lode question type in RC, inference questions appear more often than any other type. Remember that we are looking for answers that must be true based on the passage information, but these can be about specific details, author’s attitude, or completely undefined. Just keep in mind: must be true. **Logic Function** Function questions are often easily confused with detail questions, but they are not asking “what” an author mentions about something specific, but “why” or “how” the author mentions something. This can be a word, a phrase, a sentence, or a whole paragraph. Keep to the why and how by looking at the circled structural keywords and your roadmap, and you should be fine. **Logic Reasoning** Question types borrowed from the logical reasoning section and inserted into RC include assumption, strengthen/weaken, principle, and parallel reasoning questions. Use the same methods we would use in LR!

Answer 11

**1. Read the overview of the game and answer the SEAL questions.** This is the most oft-neglected part of the Logic Games setup process, but it is extremely important to do effectively, especially on the harder games. By answer the four questions (situation/entities/action/limitations), we know what type of game we are dealing with, the original numbers of the game (always significant, even when they are not clear), and any other complications that will make our sketch harder. If you have trouble with the set up, chances are you are not doing what you need to do with the SEAL questions. **2. Sketch the game’s action.** Each game type has its own sketch, which you should be familiar with. On tougher games we are asked to add things to the sketch that might be unfamiliar, so make sure to think of our sketches as a flexible jumping-off point. We can always add different things to a sketch, or change it to better serve the game we are looking at. This is especially important in hybrid games, when we have to combine one or more game actions in a single sketch. Look for the most concrete game element, and start from there. **3. Read the rules.** Reading the rules has a very specific set of instructions; first, ask yourself what the rules tells us, and what the rule is missing or doesn’t tell us (J and K have to be next to each other, but we don’t know in what order). Then, see if the rule can fit directly in your sketch. If you can put it straight in, do so. If not, use helpful shorthand to write it close by (helpful shorthand means you MUST be able to read it!). **4. Make deductions.** Our fun does not end with the rules– we also need to make deductions, and note everything that must be true about the game before heading into the questions. We can use the helpful acronym BLEND to ensure we get any and all major deductions available by looking at Blocs of entities/Limited Options/Established Entities/Numbers/Duplications. Make sure to get all possible deductions– they are invaluable when you hit the questions. **5. Go to the questions.** Start with the acceptability question, almost always the first question for the game. From there, you will see a mix of new information, “If” questions, and “Not If” questions. For every single question you should be asking what kind of right answer and what kind of wrong answers it has. Remember that for “if” questions, your impulse should be to draw a new sketch for each question, but if you don’t, you should never be writing on your master sketch. Keep complete and accurate list and “if” questions that change a rule for last. **The set-up:** **Sequencing** Sequencing games will always involve putting entities in order. Strict sequencing means entities will be placed in definite slots, while loose sequencing means that we only know the entities’ order based on relationships between the entities themselves. Strict sequencing sketches are usually a series of ordered dashes, either horizontal or vertical, while loose sequencing means we will make an relationship tree or web connecting all of the entities. Sequencing games are the most common single action game on the test, and many students’ favorite. **Matching** Matching games always have two or more distinct kinds of entities we will need to match together. Most matching games sketches just consist of listing the most concrete group of entities on paper and listing next to them whatever is matched to them from the other kinds of entities. Sometimes, we have something called binary matching, for instance when something is yes or no, for or against, girls or boys, etc. In that situation, it is possible to effectively use a grid to sketch the action. **Distribution** Distribution means we are taking a large group of entities and dividing it into subgroups. In its action, distribution is very similar to matching, but we generally have our groups as the most concrete game element in distribution, which should tip us off to the difference. For distribution, we create a chart with the groups at the top in columns. We then can use dashes to indicate how many people/places/things are in each subgroup (if we know), and place entities in each group accordingly. **Selection** Selection is another grouping game, but here we are taking a large group of entities and selecting some entities to form a single subgroup. In actuality, selection is two actions: selecting and rejecting. Both are equally important in the game. Our sketch just consists of a list of the entities in which we can circle entities that are selected and X out entities that are rejected. Selection also usually contains a lot of formal logic based rules, so we want to pay special attention to make sure that we translate, contrapose, and make deductions accurately. **Hybrid** Hybrid games are any games that combine two or more of the above actions. Sketching the hybrid game requires effectively combining the two (or more) actions’ sketches, which is part of the reason they are tricky. Sequencing and distribution are the most common “concrete” actions around which hybrid game sketches can be built.

Answer 12

Consider this statement: “If John goes to the party, Sam will go with him”. Easy enough, right? Based on this statement, John being at the party means that Sam has to be there. John attending the party is sufficient to mandate that Sam be at the party. Looking to the contrapositive, we can form an equivalent statement: “If Sam is not at the party, then John is not at the party”. So far, this is pretty straight forward. Let’s look at some other ways we can have John and Sam at the party. We can rewrite this rule using the phrase “not . . . unless”. “John is not at the party unless Sam is at the party.” That is one more way, but we are not done yet – we could use the term “only if”. “John is at the party only if Sam is at the party”. Still placing John and Sam at the party, we can also say “whenever John is at the party, Sam is at the party.” Notice we created 5 different ways of putting John and Sam at the party!

Answer 13

This phrasing isn’t all over the LSAT, but it does show up fairly regularly. What’s tricky about it is that it indicates both sufficiency and necessity. So if I said, “You work at Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory if and only if you’re an Oompa Loompa,” I’m actually saying two things – first, that if you’re an Oompa Loompa, then you work at the chocolate factory; but also only if you’re an Oompa Loompa do you work there. So that would allow you to diagram two separate conditional statements: OL → CF CF → OL As a side note, “if and only if” is the same thing as “if but only if.”

Answer 14

On the LSAT, all “or” statements are inclusive, unless they say otherwise. But for whatever reason, when we see things phrased in this way, our brains have a tendency to make them exclusive. But they’re not. For example, if I said, “You can go to law school, or else you can go to medical school,” I’m actually giving you three options – you can go to law school, you can go to medical school, or you can go to both. This is a problem that shows up in LSAT logic games a lot, but all you have to remember is that unless it says otherwise, “or” statements are always inclusive, and you could always have both.

Answer 15

If memorization is your forte, then remember simply that “only” always introduces a necessary condition. As in “the only time you’ll see ‘only’ on LR is when it is introducing the proposition that is guaranteed by the sufficient condition.” For those less memorization-inclined, however, let’s make this concept a little more intuitive. As an example, consider the following: “Only Apple Inc. has the patent rights to rectangles with rounded edges” What does the ‘only’ refer to in this case? It refers to Apple — meaning exclusively Apple; meaning none other than Apple; meaning that if it isn’t Apple, then it doesn’t have patent rights to rectangles with rounded edges. Essentially, if there exists something that has the patent, it’s necessary that that thing be Apple Inc. You would diagram it as: patent rights to rectangles —\> Apple Inc. Unfortunately, not all questions are so straightforward. The most difficult involve conditional statements in which the referent (that which is referred to by ‘only’) does not immediately follow the word ‘only’. For instance: “The only city that requires marijuana dispensaries to provide free weed to indigent patients is Berkeley”. Tricky. Here the referent does not immediately follow the ‘only,’ so it can be a little more difficult to locate the necessary condition. But if we rephrase the conditional statement, it’s clear that it is necessary to be Berkeley in order to be a city with this policy. To say that having this policy is necessary in order to be Berkeley is 1) very silly and 2) the fallacy of the converse. A little tip that has always worked well for me: I only (wink wink) diagram “only” statements in the contrapositive. For those unfamiliar with this term, it describes the relationship between “if A then B” and “if not B then not A” (the contrapositive being the latter). So when I diagram the above conditional I think of it in terms of: “If it’s a city other than Berkeley, then it doesn’t require dispensaries to provide free weed”. Thus, “not B —\> not FW” Tinker around with this a bit, and figure out what approach will make you the most comfortable, accurate, and efficient on LSAT test day. To get your mind working, check out the following examples. The only bad pie is rhubarb pie. Rhubarb pie is the only bad pie. Both of these statements are diagrammed: BP —\> RP This is because in both cases the “only” refers to that godforsaken nadir of pastries that is rhubarb. It is the limiting condition of the sentence — the property upon which badness rests. Here’s another: Only Kobe Bryant compares to Michael Jordan as a basketball player. The only basketball player who compares to Michael Jordan is Kobe Bryant. As with the previous example, both of these are diagrammed: CMJ —\> KB This is because the “only” refers to the Black Mamba. He’s necessary to make comparisons to Michael Jordan.

Answer 16

Suppose we had a cast of characters — let’s call them Frank, Garfield, Henrietta, Ipecac, Jeremiah, Kougar, Lambada and Mong. Grouping games on the LSAT might ask you to combine these characters in a few different ways. There are some important things to know about the different kinds of rules in a grouping game, and what they mean in different kinds of grouping games. Let’s run through them. In our first example, let’s say that some of these people serve on a panel about national security. This involves selecting a subgroup of our cast of characters, so we’ll call it an In & Out game. Some of them are on the panel, or “in.” Others may be left “out.” It’ll look like this: In: \_ Out: It’s helpful and important to keep track of the “out” group. Knowing that someone’s out can be just as useful as knowing that someone is in. But think about the premise behind the game. Some of them are on the panel. When the panel meets, they’ll be together. But where are the ones not on the panel? We don’t know. They’re not at the meeting. But they might just all be at home. Or at the diner. Or anywhere. This leads to an important point: The “out” group isn’t really a group. It’s just the list of people who aren’t in. Now suppose you’re told that if the panel includes Ipecac, it cannot include Lambada. That’s a conditional statement: I —\> not L Did I need to tell you to take the contrapositive? L —\> not I Look at the original rule and its contrapositive together. Start with the left-hand, sufficient side. Notice that in both cases, the rule tells you that if one of the two is in, the other is out. We can simplify this rule to mean that I and L can’t be together on the panel. They could also have just given us the same rule by saying that the two can’t be together. We’ll write it like this: I \<–|–\> L Think of that symbol as a double arrow, but negated. In other words, the presence of either one on the panel is sufficient to send the other packing. They can’t both be on the panel. At least one of them has to be off the panel, or “out.” Could they both be out? Yes, they can both be out. Again, the “out” group isn’t really a group. If they’re out, they’re not necessarily together in any meaningful way. The rule was about who’s on the panel. If one of them is on the panel, the other can’t be. But if one of them isn’t on the panel, we don’t have an arrow to follow. If you’re in doubt, look at the original conditional relationship. We can’t say anything. So they can be “together” in the out group, but they’re not really together — the out group isn’t really a group, just the list of people who aren’t in. Let’s take another rule: if the panel does not include Kougar, it must include Garfield. That’ll look like this, contrapositive included: Not K —\> G Not G —\> K This one tells us that if either one of the two is absent from the panel, the other must be there. This, also, we can simplify: it means that at least one of them is on the panel: G or K But does it mean that one of them has to be out? It doesn’t. Remember, the out group isn’t really a group. They could both be on the panel. Now let’s suppose that instead of selecting some of these fine folks for a panel, they’re all now going to the same potluck. Each of them brings either an appetizer or a main dish. That’s grouping, too. There are two groups, and no one gets to be out. No freeloaders — everyone has to bring something: A: M: Now what if I told you that Frank and Henrietta don’t bring the same kind of dish? That’s another “cannot be together” relationship, and we’ll symbolize it the same way: F \<–|–\> H That means that they can’t be together, in either group. They can’t both bring appetizers. They can’t both bring main dishes. Since there are only two options, that means that one of the two has to be in each group. Now let’s imaging multiple groups. Suppose that after the potluck, each of two cars carries exactly three of the people home. Notice anything funny? We had eight people. Two cars with three people each adds up to six. We don’t know what happens to the other two. Maybe they walk home. Maybe they get eaten by rabid coyotes at the potluck. Either way, they’re not in the cars. Once again, there’s an “out” group. The setup looks like this: 1: _ \_ \_ 2: _ \_ \_ Out: _ \_ Again, it’s important to remember that the “out” group isn’t really a group. Those two people don’t have to be together. They’re just not in one of the cars. Let’s take a couple sample rules. Let’s say that Kougar and Mongo can’t be in the same car: K \<–|–\> M Could they both be out? You bet. The rule just said they couldn’t be together. The “out” group isn’t really a group. Or what if any car that includes Lambada must include Jeremiah: L —\> J Not J —\> Not L Clearly, if L is in car 1, so is J. If L is in car 2, you get the idea. What if L is out, though? The wording of the rule should provide a hint: “any car.” The “out” group isn’t really a car. It isn’t really even a group. If L is out, J can go anywhere. Absolutely anywhere. In a grouping game, any time you don’t have spots to account for all the players, you should make an “out” group. But remember, those players aren’t necessarily grouped together in any meaningful way. The “out” group isn’t really a group and so the grouping relationships don’t apply the same way.

Answer 17

In some cases, there are a limited number of ways that a game could work. For instance, you might figure out that a bunch of people need to be next to each other, and there are only a couple places where those people could fit. Or, perhaps there are only two people who could occupy the first spot in a game, and determining who goes first would help you determine where some other people go too. In those cases, it’s worthwhile to write out each of those possibilities – it helps you see the various ways that the game might work and it usually leads to additional deductions. In most cases, you’d have to do the same work to answer the questions anyway – so although it might feel frustrating to take the time to write out scenarios before starting in on the questions, you’re probably saving yourself time in the long run.

Answer 18

When there are a finite number of ways a game could work – typically, four way or fewer. As mentioned above, this usually happens when there’s one rule that is especially restrictive. Also, although it’s almost always worth your while to jot down some scenarios, keep in mind that they’re most helpful when they lead to additional deductions. For example, knowing that Sansa and Arya are either both in King’s Landing or both at Winterfell is cool and all, but your scenarios will be most helpful if knowing Sansa and Arya’s location also tells you where, say, Jon Snow needs to be.

Answer 19

You should focus on one rule as the starting point for your scenarios. For instance, if you know that Cersei, Jaime, and Joffrey need to be next to each other in line, and there are only three potential combinations that allow those Lannisters to be next to each other, start by writing down each of those three possibilities separately. Then fill in the rest of each scenario as much as you can.

Answer 20

Once you’ve built your scenarios and deduced accordingly, it’s time to tackle the questions. Your exact approach will vary depending on the specific question, but in general, step one is to figure out which of your scenarios apply to that specific question. From there, use the scenarios to find the correct answer more quickly – if the question asks where someone could go, look for spaces that would work in all of the applicable scenarios; if it asks you where someone must go, figure out what needs to be true in all of the applicable scenarios.

Answer 21

It can be tough to figure out when scenarios will work well for a game, and when they’re less helpful. Like everything else on the LSAT, your scenario-detector will improve over time and with practice. In general, I recommend erring on the side of using scenarios when you think it might be helpful – even if the scenarios don’t lead to additional deductions, it doesn’t take much time to jot down some possibilities, and writing down the scenarios will help your overall understanding of the game. After finishing the game, think about whether your scenarios helped you; if so, identify what rules you used to create the scenarios, and keep an eye out for similar rules in the future.

Answer 22

In an ordering game, if there are multiple blocks, especially if they’re big, assess how they’ll fit together. Will they have to overlap? Will they get in each other’s way? Sometimes, this leads to a concrete deduction. But even if it doesn’t, understanding how the two blocks will have to fit together can be very helpful. See PT59, Game 4 for an example. Some ordering games have multiple categories of variables. In this case, rules about those categories can create relationships between rules that otherwise have no explicit connection. Let’s say, for example, that there are a bunch of variables in one of those categories, and they can’t appear consecutively. That affects how the other rules will be spaced out, and how they’ll fit together. **There are two main places to look for deductions in ordering games.** **1) Restrictions** – Sometimes, you’re just not going to get anything big. However, if you’ve got a solid ordering chain, figure out where some things can go and, more importantly, where they can’t. If you do this for each variable, you’ll probably waste a lot of time. However, always look at what can be first and last. Generally, you’ll be left with only a couple of options. This can be enough to set off a chain reaction of deductions. Additionally, check out the most restricted player (a theme that will repeat itself) and stay away from the ‘floaters’ (players without any rules restricting them). If Vinquetta is involved in three rules, you can probably tease a deduction out of a combination of them. **2) Blocks –** If you’re not seeing where that block can fit, you’re not doing it right. The larger the block, the more likely it is to lead to deductions or, better yet, scenarios. By their very nature, blocks are more restricted than almost any other player could be. It should take you about 20 seconds to determine which slots the block can fill; the deductions you will arrive at will be well worth the investment.

Answer 23

In a grouping game, limited space in a group can lead to deductions. One of the most common deductions in grouping games goes like this: two variables can’t be in the same group, and there are only two groups (or two groups those variables are allowed to go in). One of them therefore has to go in each group, meaning that one of the spots in each group is full already. For example, suppose that out of six people – Paolo, Quebert, Rotavirus, Sharon, Thanh, and Venereal – three do crafts, and three drink. The rules tell us that Paolo and Thanh do different activities, and that Quebert and Rotavirus do the same activity. Suppose we also know that Sharon drinks. Since Paolo and Thanh do different activities, exactly one of them must do each activity, so one spot in each group is accounted for. Since Sharon drinks, that makes two spots taken out of three in the drinking group. Quebert and Rotavirus have to go together, and there’s only space for them in the crafts group. That group’s now full, so there’s only room for Venereal in the drinking group. No two rules mentioned the same variable, and yet there were tons of deductions. This deduction also works if there are three things that can’t go together and three groups. Minimum group size can also lead to deductions. If a group has to have at least a certain size, and some variables kick other variables out of a group, it’s worth taking a close look at those rules. Who are the big-time haters, and who are the small-time haters? Who doesn’t hate at all? If a big time hater is in the group, you might be forced to put in certain other variables to meet the minimum. See PT58, Game 4 for an example of this kind of deduction. Finally, look for opportunities to do scenarios. If something big in a game is limited to two, three, or even four possibilities, it often makes sense to try out those possibilities up front, before attacking the questions. That can often lead to big deductions. To sum it up, when the rules don’t directly combine, look for spatial restrictions. Whether it’s an ordering or a grouping game, the way the rules take up space can impact other rules and lead you to big deductions. Feel free to bring up other rule combinations you’ve noticed in the comments; the above is just a start and not a comprehensive list. Remember last weekend? When you and your buddies were trying to get home from the bars at 2 AM? You called an Uber, but in your drunken stupor you neglected to select the Uber XL. So up rolls a Prius — you could swear it’s even smaller than usual — and of course you’re left with four seats for the six of you to squeeze into. The game is overbooked. We could leave some homies curbside, but we’re feeling kind-hearted. So you’re doomed to squeeze. How could you arrange yourselves? Let’s say the game gives these parameters: One person immediately calls shotgun, so that’s taken, and the two who’ve been making eyes at each other throughout the evening all-too-eagerly offer to sit lapsies in the far left bench seat. That leaves three people to squeeze into just two spots: the middle seat and the one furthest to the right. Of course, we want to optimize space, so let’s say our Principle of Distribution is to have each seat occupied by at least one person. This precludes the possibility of having one seat vacant, and three people stacked in either the middle or the rightmost seat. Instead we have two options: either we put two in the middle and one on the right, or one in the middle and two on the right. This opens up two clean scenarios for us. Either we have two slots for the middle seat and one slot for the right seat, or vice-versa. Devising scenarios is key to successful and expedient navigation through Logic Games, but they can be even more helpful if coupled with certain rules. For example, if we’re told that Raj and Tom don’t like each other and won’t sit in the same seat, then we can deduce that in both scenarios the middle seat and the right seat have to include either Raj or Tom, but necessarily not both. Alternatively, we may know that Tom and Gertrude are going steady, and that they sit in the same seat. This would make clear that in both scenarios the seat designated to double occupancy goes to Tom and Gertrude. This, of course, would also allow us to deduce that Raj must go in the single spot. Remember when I noted that the most restricted variable will be a recurring theme? In no place is that more apparent than grouping games. For any grouping game, pick a player. The number of scenarios for that player is limited by the number of groups in the game. For instance, if you’re picking people for your Double Dare Revival Team (as soon as we raise enough revenue, we’re making it a reality), there’s only two spots for Steve: the Red team or the Blue team. If he might not get picked, there’s a third spot. Each of the spots generates a different scenario, and there’s no other possibilities. If Steve has a lot of restrictions placed on him by the rules (he’s left a wake of shattered hearts and broken bones in his wake, for instance, and many people refuse to be on his team), you can probably fill up a lot of each scenario. It’s an easy way to break an otherwise difficult grouping game into manageable scenarios. A final note before I sign off, Doogie Howser style. Sometimes, you just can’t get the deductions to click, no matter how hard you try. Don’t panic, and don’t walk out of the test center, Jerry Maguire style (though that would be epic). Instead, scan the questions for an absolute, must be true question. You know that the answer is something that should be clear in your setup; if it’s not, brute force the answer and double check it. You now know something that you didn’t already, that has to be true of any other question. Is it an ideal solution? No. But if you’re at this point, you’re no longer in an ideal situation.

Answer 24

In Logic Games, cute and cuddly “A must come before B” rules are often treated as cherished instructions. It makes sense; they’re simple, absolute, and easily diagrammed. They’re also more intuitively digestible than some of our more complex Logic Games rules. But digesting complex carbs gives you fuel, while simple carbs give you a beer belly. Similarly, complex LG rules often unlock the game and propel you through the questions, whereas “A before B” rules… make you fat… (shush, no analogy is perfect). One of the most useful complex relationships comes in the form of an exclusive disjunction. You remember these from Logical Reasoning: “Bubba buys either laundry detergent or a whole new wardrobe, but not both.” For Logic Games, this is expressed in the form of “Either A comes before B, or B comes before C, but not both.” These rules, initially, should be written like this: A — B or B — C but not both Be not afraid, for there are deductions to be had. These are essentially conditionals; if one thing happens, then the other cannot happen. Let’s take the first relationship: A — B. Because of the “but not both,” we know that if A precedes B then it cannot be the case that B precedes C. In a One-to-One Ordering Game, that means that, in order to ensure that B does not precede C, we must have C precede B (because they cannot occupy the same space). That’s huge for us. We know that both A and C precede B, so we should be diagramming with branches to reflect this relationship. The same goes for the other disjunct; if B comes before C, then we know that B must come before A. Having done this, we’re left with a rule implying that either A and C both precede B, or else B precedes both A and C. Breathtakingly beautiful binary branches to better our brain-teaser. So, that’s for Ordering Games. This rule also appears, however, on Grouping Games. Let’s consider an In-and-Out Grouping Game. If we’re selecting from among eight super heroes to create a five person Justice League delegation, we might say that either Superman or Batman must be selected. But not both; that would be overkill. Just like with Ordering Games, we have to make a deduction. If Superman is in, then what do we know? We know that, based on our “but not both” rule, Batman must be out, and vice versa. If, for example, we have another rule that “If Batman is not in the delegation then Wonder Woman must be,” then this initial deduction will be very useful in allowing us to make a chain of rules (if Superman is in then Batman is out and Wonder Woman is in).

Answer 25

You’re unlikely to find a deduction by looking at a single rule. However, if two or more rules interact in some way (most often by having a player in common), that’s a lot more likely to lead to deductions. When setting up a game, I’ll look over the rules to see whether any of them discuss the same player and, if so, what happens when you combine those rules.

Answer 26

If a rule strongly limits where a player can go, that’s a good spot to start looking for deductions. In ordering games, for instance, what we at Blueprint LSAT call “blocks” can be very helpful when looking for deductions (e.g. “Namboko and Quilong are separated by exactly one person”). These types of rules also frequently lead to “scenarios,” in which there are a severely limited number of ways a game can work (say, only two places where that block can go); in those cases, it’s worth your while to make a quick hypothetical for each scenario, which will often lead to additional deductions.

Answer 27

Grouping games on the LSAT can be broken into four categories: You’re either having one person follow another, saying two people can’t be together, saying two people have to be together, or saying you need at least one of two people. Nothing tricky here, and nothing we haven’t seen (as they’re all built off of conditional relationships). Nonetheless, here’s a breakdown of grouping games to help you perform better on your upcoming LSAT. GROUPING GAMES Anytime you’re asked to separate people onto different teams, into different groups, or to cut someone from the team (a little payback for the high school baseball team you never made), you’re in a grouping game. Figure out how many groups there are, and set up the game accordingly. In and Out In these games, you’re either In, or you’re Out – Project Runway style. Some people make the cut for dodgeball, others don’t. Some actors are picked for the movie, others aren’t. Some people have chlamydia, others…well, that one probably won’t show up on the LSAT anytime soon. When you’ve got an In group and an Out group, realize that the rules preventing two from being together or needing at least one only apply to the In group. Other than that, just keep track of the rules and you’ll be fine. Also, remember that a “can’t have both” relationship means you can set up an option in the Out group, and an “at least one” rule gives you an option in the In group. As a small caveat, you will at times be asked to pull the players from subgroups. Hef’s laying out his newest magazine, for instance, and needs a few blondes, a brunette or two, and some redheads. When you run into this situation, rejoice. It sounds complicated, but once you play the numbers to figure out how many from each group (there are four possible blonds, three possible brunettes and redheads) are going to be in the magazine, you’ll have a few manageable scenarios that will make the questions a breeze. Teams Marc Summers is reviving Double Dare (not because he’s doing nothing with his life, but because he’s finally acceding to all of the fan outcry) and he’s picking a Red and a Blue team. We’re no longer cutting anyone. Now, everyone’s on a team (or, we could cut people, and this would be a complicated game with two teams and an out group). We don’t care the order of people getting picked, but we do care about who’s making up the Red and Blue teams. Expect the same rules (I told you; there are only a few), only now the “can’t be together” rule applies to each group. As such, you can form linked options in a two-team game for each “can’t be together” rule you have. It gets a bit more complicated with more than two teams (since you can no longer use those options just discussed); however, the teams are necessarily smaller, and the rules are usually more complete to make up for it. Just stick to the same principles and you’ll be fine. Profiling Okay, I know that profiling games can be tricky. I hear you. These are the ones where you don’t know how many people are going to be in each group, or even how many times each person can go. You’re a track coach (I know, but bear with me), and you’re putting your kids into different events. You don’t know how many are in each event, and you don’t know how many races little Timmy can run. These can be tricky, but the first thing to do is figure out the base for the groups. Check the rules, and if they’re assigning events to kids, use the kids as the base (Timmy runs the 4×400 and does the shotput). If, however, you’re assigning kids to events (Timmy and Vanessa each pole vault), then use the events as a base.

Answer 28

ORDERING GAMES All ordering games will ask you to (shock!) put things in order. Whenever you’re ranking things, listing in order, going through days of the week, dealing with sequential grades, etc., think ordering. However, the determination doesn’t end there. After you know you’re putting things in order, you have to figure out if there’s anything else going on. We all love games where there are the same number of players as there are slots (1:1 ordering games); however, you need to move past that! Underbooked In an underbooked game, you’re going to have more slots than players. Think Musical Chairs for the remedial class – everyone can win, with seats left over. While leaving slots open might crop up, more likely you’ll be dealing with a situation where people are going more than once. Like if you’re ordering three frat brothers into a keg stand competition, and you know that there are seven keg stands total. Expect rules that set up ordering chains around Chet’s need to go before Chad’s first keg stand, but only once. Use subscripts to keep track of whether it’s Cornelius’s first or second time with a tap in his mouth. And play the numbers to see how often everyone’s going. Overbooked As we all know, Hugh Hefner is the man. He’s got more women than the Bible’s got Psalms.\* And he’s trying to draw up a schedule for the sleeping arrangements for the week. In this case, we’ve got more girls (let’s call it 12) for the seven days of the week. Because we’ve got more players than slots (“that’s what she said!” hilarious!), we’re overbooked. Expect a principal of distribution that will tell us which nights he’s sharing the bed with multiple girls (I hear Wednesday AND Friday are Hump Day at the Hef House). Other than that, expect the normal ordering rules. Tiered Now, imagine that we’re still planning out Hef’s week, but he has a broken hip. As such, he’s only performing the maritals with one girl each night. It sounds like 1:1, but then they throw in a hitch – some nights, he’s with a normal model, while others he’s with a centerfold. As soon as we know something extra about the girls, we are in a tiered ordering game. Create a second line above the first so that you can keep this information in the same order. Expect rules that bridge the tiers, creating either an ordering chain between them or Tetris pieces that will fit together like the Hef and the girls they’re meant to represent. And don’t stop there – if we get more pieces of information (blond/redhead/brunette; natural/silicon-enhanced), keep throwing tiers on there. These can be a little scary, but realize that the more tiers there are, the more likely the LSAC is to throw a whole bunch of determinative rules at you ahead of time so that you can fill in more slots with options (bet you thought I was going to say “that’s what she said”). Don’t freak out, and you’ll be just fine. As a final note, it’s easy to get confused between a Tiered Ordering game and a Grouping or Combo Game. However, there’s a big difference between the prompts for the two. A tiered ordering game will have traits that can only be applied one at a time (you can’t be both natural and silicon-enhanced, unless you’ve got a Two-Face thing going on) and will ask you to place everything in a single order, or the members of the groups will be listed for you in the stimulus.

Answer 29

The sun is out, barbeques and beach days are being planned, and people across the land are missing all of it because they’re staying indoors, studying for hours on end. The season of the LSAT is upon us. You might not get to experience much of summer, but there’ll be time enough for leisure in the park when you’re a handsomely-paid lawyer. Now is the time for LSAT study. As you probably know by now, conditional statements are one of the most common things you’ll run across on the LSAT. At first, these can be terribly difficult to understand. One of the reasons for this is that there are so many different ways to express a conditional statement. The most basic form is “If A, then B,” but there are a number of ways to say the exact same thing; “All As are Bs,” “No As are not Bs,” “Being a B is required of being an A,” “Having A is sufficient for having B.” A huge part of improving your conditional reasoning skills is learning to recognize all the different permutations that these can show up in. Certain words can help you recognize which condition is sufficient and which is necessary. Words such as… **ONLY IF –** When you see “only if,” you should take a second to thank the LSAT gods, because “only if” is super easy to diagram; whatever immediately follows “only if” is necessary. You don’t even need to think about it. Just put the part after “only if” on the right side. For example: Only if you study hard will you do well on the LSAT. What follows “only if?” “Study hard,” so that’s in the necessary: Do Well LSAT → Study Hard Really, that’s it. Memorize this, and you’ll never have any excuse to misdiagram another “only if” statement ever again. **ONLY –** “Only” presents much more of a challenge than its cheap cousin “only if.” The way “only” works is that whatever it refers to is necessary. Sounds easy, but the hard part is figuring out exactly what “only” is referring to anyway. One thing that can help is asking yourself “only what?” What is the necessary thing they’re referring to? What do you have to have? For example: The only way you can win a competitive eating contest is by eating hundreds of hotdogs every day to prepare. Here, what is “only” referring to? Well, it’s referring to “way,” the way you could win an eating contest. But what is that “way?” Well, the way you would do it is by eating hundreds of hotdogs. That’s the only way you could ever win. So: Win Eating Contest → Hundreds of Hotdogs Per Day So remember, you’re looking what “only” is referring to. Because that is what will be necessary. **UNLESS/UNTIL/WITHOUT/EXCEPT –** You should be able to rattle off these four words immediately at the drop of a hat, because, like with “only,” they’re a gift that makes diagramming incredibly easy. Whenever you see “unless,” “until,” “without,” or “except,” you can just replace them with “if not.” Seriously, that’s all you have to do. For example: You can’t get in the bar without your ID. “Without” immediately becomes “if not,” and you end up with: You can’t get in the bar IF NOT your ID. Which is now super easy to diagram: NOT ID → NOT BAR Or: Unless you’re a millionaire, you’ll never go to space. “Unless” just becomes “if not,” and you end up with: NOT Millionaire → NOT Going to Space If you haven’t memorized these yet, do so now. Start chanting “Unless, Until, Without, Except.” And it loudly. So make sure to internalize all of these, and you’ll be on your way to mastering conditional statements. Mastering conditional statements will reap rewards all over the test, getting you significantly closer getting a great score and finally being done with this damn test.

Answer 30

Sufficient and necessary conditions are the key ingredients to conditional statements, which are the most common logical propositions on the LSAT. Just to be clear, these are simply big words for claims that you use regularly in your everyday interactions. “If I have one more shot of tequila, I will wake up on the bathroom floor.” “Unless I get a real job, I will have to start working the corner.” “I would only sleep with him if he were the last man on the planet.” Believe it or not, this form of statement will largely determine your success on the LSAT. Weird. But here is the trick. When you are “hanging with the homeys” (new slang I just picked up), you don’t realize that these statements follow very concrete rules. These claims lead to certain inferences, and they are the basis for some tempting fallacies. So here are a few lessons that I hope will assist you in your battle against conditional statements… 1 Sufficient goes on the left. Necessary goes on the right. I have devised many methods for helping students understand conditional statements. I’ve helped them rephrase the statements. I’ve urged them to understand the intricacies of the logical relationship. I’ve implored them to grasp the complex nature of sufficiency and necessity. However, there is one simple piece of advice that always works best: just remember which side to put the sh\*t on. That’s right, just remember where the sufficient goes and where to throw the necessary. The rest will take care of itself. Here are a few examples: “Anyone who owns a private island is filthy rich.” Most students will understand that owning a private island, in this example, is sufficient to conclude that someone is rich. It is enough to guarantee that someone is really, really loaded. Simply place that condition on the left side of the diagram and you are good to go: Private Island –\> Filthy Rich. “To be a Justin Bieber fan, you must be under the age of 12 or a pedophile.” In this one, it is important to notice that they are introducing necessary conditions to be a fan of the boy with the most famous hairdo in Hollywood. One must meet one of these conditions; it is a requirement. So don’t think, just jot down an arrow diagram and throw these conditions on the right: Bieber Fever –\> Under 12 or Pedophile. See, simple as that. 2. There are only two things that matter. Students commonly give conditional statements much more credit than they deserve. As soon as they see the arrow and variables crossed out, they have bad flashbacks to Ms. Brown’s high school algebra class. But derivatives be damned, these statements are far simpler than that. There are only two things that you have to watch for: 1. Satisfying a sufficient condition 2. Denying a necessary condition Consider the following claim: “To take part on Dancing with the Stars, you must be a washed up celebrity.” As we stated in Part 1, notice that must is introducing a necessary condition, so our diagram would look like this: DWTS –\> Washed Up Celeb. Here are the two inferences that can be drawn from this statement. If a certain person (Bristol Palin, the Situation, or Kirstie Alley, perhaps) is on that fabulous show, then we automatically conclude that they are a washed up celebrity (because they have satisfied the sufficient condition). Also, if someone is not a washed up celebrity (they might never have been a celebrity or their career might still be going strong), then we know that person will not be dancing an awkward merengue on ABC anytime soon (because we denied the necessary condition). That seems easy enough, but here is where students get thrown. Nothing else matters. For instance, if someone is a washed up celebrity (Danny Bonaduce, Screech, Steven Seagal, Vanilla Ice, or either Corey, for instance), what does that mean? You might be tempted to say that he or she is on Dancing with the Stars, but that would be terribly wrong. In this situation, we have satisfied the necessary condition, but that doesn’t tell us anything. Also, let’s say we know someone has never appeared on DWTS (doesn’t meet the sufficient condition). Then what? You answer should be the same: so what. That person may or may not be a washed up celebrity. When you are dealing with conditional statements, always keep your eyes peeled for the two things that matter. Other than that, in the immortal words of Slim Shady, you just don’t give a fuck.

Answer 31

It’s all about argument structure. Three quarters of the exam — Reading Comprehension and the two Logical Reasonings sections — test exactly one thing. They test your understanding of argumentation. They come at that concept in a number of different ways, but this makes perfect sense because law school and the practice of law focus almost exclusively on making one’s own arguments and undermining the arguments of one’s opponent. Reading Comprehension passages are analogues to judicial opinions, which will be the primary instrument with which your professors torture you. In a judicial opinion, it’s most often the case that the judge (really, the judge’s clerk, but who’s keeping track?) will lay out the arguments of plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), and usually the judge will accept one argument and reject the other. That’s why the most common passage type, by far, is what we here at Blueprint call an Antithesis passage. There are two points of view that are at odds with one another, even though those points of view rarely involve legal issues. Usually there is what we call a present author, meaning that the author decides that one of those two points of view is correct. That’s the big picture stuff, but the slightly smaller picture is understanding how arguments work. An argument really consists of just two parts: a conclusion, which is a thing someone is trying to prove, and at least one premise, which is support for a conclusion. A very brief argument might look like this: Conclusion: Smoking causes cancer. Premise: Several studies showed higher rates of cancer among smokers than among nonsmokers. Obviously, it will be more complicated than this in a Reading Comprehension passage, but that’s what you need to keep your eye on. Answer these three questions, and you’ve got Reading Comp in the bag: (1) What conclusions are asserted? (2) What is the support for each? (3) Which conclusion, if any, does the author agree with. To force yourself to read actively and think about how the passage is structured, take a second after reading each paragraph to think about what that paragraph is doing. Your summary should be as brief as possible – perhaps the paragraph is introducing a new viewpoint, or providing an example in support of the main point, or providing background information. By the time you’re done reading the passage, you should be able to identify what each paragraph is doing and how the paragraphs are related. For instance, here is what my summary of a (hypothetical, but fairly typical) passage might sound like: The first paragraph provides background information. The second paragraph presents the scientists’ viewpoint. The third paragraph outlines criticism of the scientists’ viewpoint. The final paragraph provides the author’s main point. Ideally, you want to tag role elements: support/evidence, studies, hypotheses, experiments, examples, causal claims, questions, answers, problems, solutions, criticisms, and so on. If you can’t spot a structural element, then your second best option is to us a subject tag. Role tags answer, well, Role questions, that’s why they’re awesome. Subject tags will at least help you navigate the passage and remember what the author said. #2: Take notes, but not too many Annotating passages is an art, and it takes a while to get the hang of it. Many students are reluctant to take notes, or they write down far too much, or they just underline things that seem important without thinking about why they sound important. (There are two big problems with just underlining parts of the passage willy-nilly: Firstly, because you’re not forcing yourself to think about why that part of the passage seems important, it’s not actually improving your understanding of the passage. Secondly, it doesn’t help refresh your memory when you glance back at the passage – you end up with a bunch of random underlined phrases and sentences, rather than notes that help you remember where in the passage things occur.) Note-taking has a sweet spot: Your notes should help you quickly find relevant sections of the passage, but you shouldn’t just end up re-writing the whole thing. Here are the things I suggest writing down: 1) Structural notes – After you think about the function of each paragraph (see tip #1), jot down a few words – “background info” or “scientists’ viewpoint.” If you see an example, throw an “ex.” next to it. If the author describes criticism of another viewpoint, write “critics.” This type of note helps you stay focused on the structure of the passage rather than the content, and it helps you easily refer back to the passage as necessary. 2) Author attitude – If you see a word that indicates how the author feels about something, underline that word and write “AA” next to it for “author attitude.” Whenever the author expresses an opinion, you’ll almost definitely get at least one question about it, so it’s important to make note of the author’s attitude wherever it appears. 3) Underline the main conclusion, if it’s explicitly stated – Not all passages neatly summarize the main point for you – sometimes you’ll have to fill in that blank yourself – but if the author gives you her main conclusion, you best make note of it. Step 2: Reading for agreements and disagreements from the second passage Before I move on to the second passage, I like to quickly review my tags for the first passage. I tend to have a lot more tags per line than I would in a normal Reading Comp passage. This way, when I start reading the second passage, all the ways in which the two passage relate jump out. Here, during your second passage, your tagging strategy changes a bit. Every time you find an agreement in the second passage, write a little (+) in the margin. If you find more than one, then start numbering your plusses: (1+). And, every time you find a disagreement, tag it with a (–). Feel free to write a word or phrase next to each (+) or (–) to help you remember what the agreement or disagreement is. Step 3: Don’t forget your other strategies! Often people get so overwhelmed with tracking agreements and disagreements that they forget to use their other Reading Comp strategies. Remember, each passage will have a primary structure (Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis), secondary structures (examples, questions/answers, causal claims, classifications) and a number of other elements we usually keep an eye out for (experiments, named advocates, studies, and so on). Also, you should be using your Logical Reasoning question type strategies during Reading Comp. Each Reading Comp question has a corresponding Logical Reasoning question type. The work of typing Reading Comp questions is a bit harder, but it’s definitely doable. At the very least, try to figure out which question family you’re in (Implication? Operation? Characterization?).

Answer 32

**Typify the conclusion—i.e., is the conclusion one of these types?** * Assertion of fact * If/then * Recommendation/proposal * Value judgment * Prediction * Comparison

Answer 33

Now it’s time to make an inference. We will start with the same one Tiffany made already in the earlier example. Say you are told again in an LSAT question, “if Valerie went to the Mall then Mandi drove her.” We now understand that this is a true statement about the world for the purposes of answering that question. Each and every time Valerie happens to be at the mall, then Mandi drove. Now the question gives you another premise, telling you, “Valerie is in fact at the mall.” What do we know now? What inference can we make about what else must have happened? By now answering this should be easy. We know that Mandi drove her! This inference is known as modus ponens. It means that when the sufficient condition did indeed occur or is true, the necessary condition also must occur or be true as well. Here is the rule in abstract: Premise 1: If A then B Premise 2: A occurred Valid inference: Therefore B occurred The shorter way of writing this is: A —\> B A So B

Answer 34

MODUS TOLLENS At this point let’s switch to another example sentence just to keep you on you toes. Let’s say an LSAT question tells us “If Valerie is happy, then Brad must have taken her on a date.” The question further tells us, “Brad couldn’t have taken Valerie out, because he went to the movies with Mandi.” Well what do we know about Valerie? Is she happy right now? Not a chance. She can’t be happy unless Brad takes her out. That’s just where she’s at in her life right now. Therefore, she is not happy. The inference that we just made is called modus tollens, which means that if a necessary condition does not occur or is not true, then the sufficient condition can’t possibly have occurred or be true either. Let’s look at it in simple form so that you can see it again: Premise 1: If Valerie is happy, then Brad must have taken her on a date. Premise 2: Brad did not take her on a date Valid inference: Valerie is not happy Again, in abstract form: A ——\> B Not B Therefore not A

Answer 35

Premise 1: If Mandi went to Forever 21, she bought new earrings. Now say you know that Mandi did not go to Forever 21. This is premise 2- Premise 2: Mandi didn’t go to Forever 21 Can we make any proper inferences about Mandi from these two premises? The common one that people try to make is to infer that Mandi did not buy earrings. However, we simply don’t know either way from these premises. She may indeed have not bought earrings. She may have bought them somewhere else. We don’t know anything beyond that she didn’t physically go buy earrings at Forever 21. Here’s the invalid conclusion again: Invalid conclusion: Mandi didn’t buy earrings In abstract this fallacy looks like this: Fallacy #1 in abstract: P1: A —–\> B P2: A Invalid conclusion: B Another common way this happens if someone negates without flipping necessary and sufficient conditions. So they start with A —–\> B and might hastily write down A —\> B, thinking they have a valid contrapositive, when they do not.

Answer 36

The next common LSAT logic error is mistakenly reversing the necessary and sufficient conditions. Say we know absolutely Mandi bought earrings, do we know she went to Forever 21? No we do not. Just because a necessary condition occurs, this does not tell you whether the sufficient condition occurred as well. P1: If Mandi went to Forever 21, then she bought earrings P2: Mandi bought earrings Invalid conclusion: Mandi went to Forever 21. In abstract: P1: A —–\> B P2: B Invalid conclusion: A Another way this happens is if you mistakenly reverse the necessary and sufficient conditions without properly negating them, so you start with A —–\> B and flip to B ——-\> A. This is invalid. Don’t do it.

Answer 37

Adding conjunctions creates an extra step when forming contrapositives. Let’s look at a conditional statement with a conjunction so you can see this in action: Conditional statement: If Brad likes a girl, then it’s either Valerie or Mandi (BLG ——-\> LM or LV) One might be tempted to do the contrapositive out as LM or LV ——-\> BLG (If Brad does not like Mandi or does not like Valerie, then he does not like a girl). However, this would be incorrect. Think about it: Brad might like Mandi and not like Valerie or vice versa, in which case he clearly like some girl. All we know is that when he doesn’t like both, then he must not like any girl at the moment. Therefore the proper way to write the contrapositive is: If Brad does not like Mandi and does not like Valerie, then he does not like a girl (LM and LV ——-\> BLG). The rule is this: when forming the contrapositive of a conditional statement with a conjunction, flip, negate, then change the ‘and’ to ‘or’ and vice versa. So the rule in abstract is: Example 1: A —–\> B or C Contrapositive: B and C ——-\> A Example 2: A ——\> B and C Contrapositive: B or C ——-\> A Example 3: A or B —–\> C Contrapositive: C ——\> A and B Example 3: A and B —–\> C Contrapositive: C ——\> A or B

Answer 38

If, every, any, all, whenever, and when

Answer 39

Then, must, unless, until except, only, only if, without, requires/required

Answer 40

To me, conditional statements with unless are the trickiest. Take this sentence: “Unless I was skiing, I can’t have done a rodeo flip.” I found sentences like this very hard to visualize in diagram form until I learned a special technique. The technique is: Step 1: just put whatever goes immediately after the unless and put it into the necessary condition: ——-\> I go skiing Step 2 is to put whatever is left in the sufficient condition and negate it. So “I can’t have done a rodeo flip” becomes “I did a rodeo flip.” I did a rodeo flip ——\> final sentence: If I did a rodeo flip, then I must have gone skiing (RF ——\> S). This trick works with ‘except,’ ‘until,’ and ‘without as well, so the sentences “without skiing, I can’t have done and rodeo flip,” and “except for when I’m skiing, I can’t do a rodeo flip” would create the same diagram. Return to the this technique over and over until diagramming these unless-type sentences becomes natural.

Answer 41

Now, we got all the rules you need on paper, let’s put them all in one place: Modus Ponens: P1: A ——\> B P2: A Valid inference: Therefore B Modus Tollens: P1: A ——\> B P2: Not B Valid inference: Therefore Not A Contrapositive: Valid Forms Original: A ——\> B Contrapositive: B ——\> A Original: A ——\> B Contrapositive: B ——\> A Original: A ——\> B Contrapositive: B ——\> A Original: A ——\> B Contrapositive: B ——\> A Syllogism: P1: A —-\> B P2: B —-\> C Valid inference: A —–\> C Contrapositives with Conjunctions: Example 1: A —–\> B or C Contrapositive: B and C —–\> A Example 2: A —–\> B and C Contrapositive: B or C —–\> A Example 3: A or B —–\> C Contrapositive: C ——\> A and B Fallacy #1: P1: A ——\> B P2: A Invalid inference: Therefore B Also often written as A ——\> B Fallacy #2 P1: A ——\> B P2: B Valid inference: Therefore A Also often written as B ——\> A Words that indicate a sufficient condition: If, every, any, all, whenever, and when Words that indicate a necessary condition: Then, unless, except, only, only if, without, requires/required, must

Answer 42

PREMISE: * Because * Since * For * As * In that * Due to * Owing to * In as much as * Derived from * * After all o Above all o Indeed o For instance o For example o Given that o Seeing that o Can be seen from o As indicated by o Know this by o Clear/Evidenced from the fact that o Supported by the fact that o For the reason that o On the ground that

Answer 43

ADDITIONAL PREMISE: * And * At the same time * In addition * Moreover * Furthermore * Also * What’s more * Besides * Additionally

Answer 44

EXPLANATION/DEFINITION: * , ... , * — ... — * That is * In other words

Answer 45

SHIFT: * But * Yet * However * Nevertheless * Nonetheless * On the other hand * On the contrary * In contrast * By contrast

Answer 46

CONCESSION (SHIFT will occur after the concession phrase comma): * Though ..., * Even though ..., * Although ..., * While ..., * Despite ..., * In spite of ..., * Admittedly ..., * Granted ..., * Of course ..., * May be right ..., * Is true that ..., * Unlike ..., * Whereas ...,

Answer 47

SUFFICIENT CONDITION: * If * When * Whenever * As long as * Every * All * Any * The only * In order to * (To/For/That/Which/Who * \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)\*

Answer 48

NECESSARY CONDITION: * Then * Only * Only if * Only when * Must * __________ is essential * Requires * No ... Unless \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ * No ... Except \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ * No ... Until \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ * No ... Without \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ * (It is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_)\*

Answer 49

CAUSATION: (C=cause; E=effect) * (C) Causes (E) * (C) Leads to (E) * (C) Tends to (E) * (C) Induces (E) * (C) Influences (E) * (C) Promotes (E) * (C) Inhibits (E) * (C) Enables (E) * (C) Encourages (E) * (C) Determines (E) * (C) Produces (E) o (C) Triggers (E) o (C) Plays a role in (E) o (C) Responsible for (E) o (C) Is the reason for (E) o (C) Is a factor in (E) o (E) Because of (C) o (E) Product of (C) o (E) Result of (C) o (E) Due to (C) o (E) Effect of (C) o The ..., the ... (CORRELATION)

Answer 50

DEGREE WORDS (positive): * Every/All/Any/Each * Most/Majority/Over half/ * Almost all/Nearly all * Some/At least one/Many/ * A few/A little DEGREE WORDS (negative): * Not all (some NOT) * Not most (most NOT) * Not some (all NOT à NONE)

Answer 51

OPINION: * Should/Should not * Must/Must not * Need/No need * Can/Possible/Likely/Probably * Cannot/Impossible/Unlikely * Surely/Merely/Purely * Never/Always/Without Exception * Sufficient/Guarantee/Essential * Right/Correct/True * Wrong/Incorrect/False * Good/Bad * Clear/Obvious/Inevitable * Compelling/Crucial/Important * Fails/Misguided/Useless/ * Flawed/Pointless * Unfortunately/Fortunately * Ignores/Obscures/Overlooks * Argues/Claims/Contends * (Predictions) * (Superlatives)

Answer 52

TONE (RC): * Unreserved * Outright * Optimistic * Sympathetic * Respectful * Restrained * Suppressed * Tacit * Ambivalent * Detached * Uninterested * Uncommitted * Indifferent * Guarded * Unimpressed * Disparaging * Critical * Scornful

Answer 53

In statistics, "correlation" refers to a statistical relationship between two interdependent variables (e.g. height and weight, studying and grades, etc.). A correlation alone does not prove a causal relationship, but it can suggest that a causal relationship does, in fact, exist. For instance, a correlation between height and weight cannot be interpreted to mean that either one causes the other. On the other hand, a correlation between studying and grades implies that studying causes higher grades, but the correlation alone is not sufficient to prove that such a causal relationship exists. An empirically observable correlation between two interdependent variables is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for causality. On the LSAT, correlations usually function as evidence presented in support of a causal conclusion: Premise: A and B are correlated Conclusion: A causes B Usually, the problem with such arguments is the presumption that correlation proves causation. It does not, as there could be some third factor that could explain (i.e. provide a causal explanation for) the observed correlation, or other means of interpreting the relationship. Here's an example of a typical causal argument involving a correlation: Scientists have long suspected that isoflavones, a class of biologically active organic compounds, tend to improve one's cognitive performance. Now these views have acquired strong support from a recent study showing that college students who took soy isoflavone supplements for 3 months did significantly better on various reasoning tasks than students who never took such supplements. The structure of the argument is as follows: Premise: Soy isoflavone supplementation is correlated with improved cognitive performance. Conclusion: Soy isoflavone supplementation causes an improvement in cognitive performance. When analyzing such arguments, it is important to consider why the correlation observed may not be sufficient to establish the causal conclusion. The problem is usually with the way in which the study was controlled. For instance, if the students examined were not randomly assigned to each group, this would imply a selection bias in the experimental group and compromise the validity of the conclusion. Indeed, if those who are particularly driven or ambitious tend to take performance-enhancing supplements, and also tend to do better on various reasoning tasks than their less ambitious counterparts, the correlation between isoflavone supplementation and performance could be explained by a third factor (ambition) causing both the alleged “cause” and the “effect.” To eliminate the possibility of bias, it may also be important to conduct a double-blind study in which neither the students nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and who belongs to the experimental group until after all data have been recorded. Without a double-blind study, it is possible that the correlation observed is a function of a placebo effect, or of the experimenters’ own subjective bias towards the expected result. Arguments that follow this pattern of reasoning are typically followed by one of the following question types: Weaken Strengthen Assumption Flaw in the Reasoning How exactly does the LSAT exploit the subtle difference between correlations and causations in Weaken questions? Here is a typical stimulus containing a causal conclusion supported by a correlation: Advertisement: Pump3D is a nutritional supplement that can greatly reduce athletes’ fatigue after anaerobic exercise. This was shown by a study investigating the relationship between fatigue and high doses of guarana extract—the main ingredient in Pump3D—which showed that people who regularly take guarana extract supplements have a significantly lower level of fatigue after anaerobic exercise than people who do not take the supplement. Since the key to weakening an LSAT argument is to focus on the conclusion, it is essential to break down the argument. The conclusion is the first sentence in the stimulus, in support of which the author describes the results of one particular study (“this is shown by” is a premise indicator): Premise: People who regularly take guarana extract supplements have a significantly lower level of fatigue after anaerobic exercise than people who do not take the supplement. Premise: Guarana extract is the main ingredient in Pump3D. Conclusion: Pump3D can greatly reduce athletes’ fatigue after anaerobic exercise. The advertisement’s conclusion is based on a questionable assumption, since the study only establishes a correlation between lower level of fatigue and guarana supplementation. While there are many ways of attacking the conclusion, most will require undermining the reliability of the study or experiment. First, was the study properly controlled? In other words, are we sure that the subjects who did not take guarana supplementation had the same baseline fitness level as those who did? Second, do we have any reason to suspect that taking supplements would have a placebo effect that would lead the study group to overestimate the degree to which their fatigue has been reduced? Third, is it possible that the researchers themselves are biased in favor of discovering the sought-after effect? We can also weaken the argument by questioning whether the causal relationship can be explained by a third, independent factor. What if people who typically experience lower level of fatigue because of a third, unrelated factor (above-average fitness level, other nutritional supplements, etc.) also tend to take Pump3D? This would imply an alternate cause for the observed effect. With this in mind, take a look at the following two questions. Question # 1 Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument in the advertisement? (A) Guarana extract supplements tend to reduce slightly athletes’ endurance and stamina during aerobic exercise. (B) People who regularly consume guarana extract supplements tend to be professional athletes, who rarely experience fatigue after exercise. (C) Guarana extract is only one of several ingredients in Pump3D. (D) The reduction in fatigue due to the consumption of guarana extract is no greater than the reduction due to other nutritional supplements. (E) Guarana extract taken in the form of supplements has a different effect on the body than does guarana extract taken in food. Question # 1: Answer and Analysis Since the key to weakening an LSAT argument is to focus on the conclusion, it is essential to break down the argument. The conclusion is the first sentence in the stimulus, in support of which the author describes the results of one particular study (“this is shown by” is a premise indicator): Premise: People who regularly take guarana extract supplements have a significantly lower level of fatigue after anaerobic exercise than people who do not take the supplement. Premise: Guarana extract is the main ingredient in Pump3D. Conclusion: Pump3D can greatly reduce athletes’ fatigue after anaerobic exercise. The advertisement’s conclusion is based on a questionable assumption, since the study only establishes a correlation between lower level of fatigue and guarana supplementation. While there are many ways of attacking the conclusion, most will require undermining the reliability of the study or experiment. First, was the study properly controlled? In other words, are we sure that the subjects who did not take guarana supplementation had the same baseline fitness level as those who did? Second, do we have any reason to suspect that taking supplements would have a placebo effect that would lead the study group to overestimate the degree to which their fatigue has been reduced? Third, is it possible that the researchers themselves are biased in favor of discovering the sought-after effect? We can also weaken the argument by questioning whether the causal relationship can be explained by a third, independent factor. What if people who typically experience lower level of fatigue because of a third, unrelated factor (above-average fitness level, other nutritional supplements, etc.) also tend to take Pump3D? This would imply an alternate cause for the observed effect, and agrees most closely with answer choice (B). Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because the scope of the argument is limited to the effects of guarana supplementation on anaerobic exercise alone. The effect on aerobic exercise would only be relevant if the conclusion extended to include other forms of exercise (or exercise in general). Be aware of argument scope, and avoid weakening a more general version of the conclusion than the one presented. Answer choice (B) is the correct answer choice. Recall that the advertisement’s conclusion is based upon a questionable assumption, since the study only establishes a correlation between lower level of fatigue and guarana supplementation. If the subjects who took guarana extract did not have the same baseline fitness level as those who did, then the study was not properly controlled. This, in turn, opens up the possibility of an alternative interpretation for the observed correlation: rather than arguing that guarana reduces fatigue, it is now possible that some third factor—being a professional athlete, for instance—is causally related both to experiencing lower levels of fatigue (professional athletes rarely do), and to the consumption of guarana extract (professional athletes regularly consume it). Answer choice (C) may seem attractive, because we know that guarana extract is only one of several ingredients in Pump3D. However, we cannot weaken what we do not know: it is entirely possible that the other ingredients in Pump3D are inactive, or that they only intensify the stimulating effects of guarana. Answer choice (D) is perhaps the most attractive incorrect answer choice. If the reduction in fatigue due to the consumption of guarana is no greater than the reduction due to other nutritional supplements, this suggests that guarana is not the only (or the best) way to reduce fatigue. Other nutritional supplements work just as well. This does not weaken the conclusion, however, which only argues that a nutritional supplement containing guarana can greatly reduce athletes’ fatigue. The author never claimed that Pump3D would be the best (or the only) way to reduce fatigue. Even if some other supplement is just as good (or better), as long as Pump3D works as advertised the argument still stands. Answer choice (E) is incorrect, because it plays upon the commonly held belief that supplements are not the “real thing.” Read closely! The study examined subjects who took nutritional supplements containing guarana extract, making it reasonable to draw a conclusion about the effects of a similar supplement, such as Pump3D. Had the study examined the effects of guarana when taken with food, this answer choice would have been a reasonable objection to the conclusion. Question # 2 Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument? (A) The belief that a nutritional supplement would have a certain effect can sometimes produce that effect. (B) People who regularly take guarana extract do not undertake unusually strenuous exercise regimens that are otherwise conducive to experiencing fatigue. (C) People who avoid taking nutritional supplements are not more likely to have a healthy, well-balanced diet that combats fatigue. (D) People who regularly take guarana extract are not significantly more likely than those who do not to consume caffeine, a known stimulant that decreases fatigue. (E) Consuming guarana extract has few serious side effects. Question # 2: Answer and Analysis Knowing the potential flaws in the author’s conclusion is immensely helpful in identifying an assumption upon which that conclusion is based. The answer you select must contain a statement upon which the argument depends, i.e. a statement that is necessary for the conclusion to be true. Typically, if you see a major weakness in an argument where the author relies on a potentially biased experiment to draw a causal conclusion, look for a Defender assumption answer stating that the study was properly controlled. As always, prove the correct answer choice by using the Assumption Negation Technique: if the logical opposite of a given statement weakens the conclusion of the argument, then it must be an assumption upon which the conclusion depends. Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a placebo effect, which would weaken the argument, not represent an assumption necessary for the argument to be logically valid. Indeed, if the researchers failed to conduct a “blind experiment” where neither the experiment, nor the control group, were aware of what supplement they were taking, then it is entirely possible that those reporting lower levels of fatigue were influenced by their belief that the nutritional supplement would be effective. Since we are not answering a Weaken question, this answer choice is incorrect. Answer choice (B): If people who regularly take guarana extract avoid strenuous exercise, no wonder they feel less fatigued than those who do not take guarana. This answer choice also weakens the argument and is incorrect. You can also analyze this answer choice by examining the effect of its logical opposite. What if those who regularly take guarana do exercise a lot, which typically makes one feel tired? This would only strengthen—not weaken—the conclusion that Pump3D reduces fatigue. Why? Because these subjects must have done something right to counteract the fatigue-inducing effects of rigorous exercise (given that they feel less tired than the control group). That “something” could have been Pump3D, suggesting that the supplement might be effective in reducing fatigue. Answer choice (C): This answer choice states that people who avoid taking nutritional supplements are not more likely than those who do to have a healthy, well-balanced diet that combats fatigue. To examine whether this is an assumption, try negating it: What if those who avoid taking nutritional supplements were more likely than others to have a healthy, well-balanced diet that combats fatigue? In that case, we would expect the control group to be experiencing lower levels of fatigue than the experimental group, which is not the case: in fact, those who consumed guarana were significantly less tired than those who did not. Since we cannot argue with the facts, we are left to conclude that guarana had a positive effect on the subjects who took it, strengthening the conclusion of the argument. The logical opposite of answer choice (C) does not weaken the argument, proving that answer choice (C) is not an assumption upon which that argument depends. Answer choice (D) is the correct answer choice, because its logical opposite weakens the conclusion. What if people who regularly take guarana extract were more likely than others to consume caffeine, a known stimulant that decreases fatigue? This suggests that their decreased level of fatigue may be due to an alternate cause—caffeine—revealing that the study is based on a potentially biased sample. It is no longer possible to claim with absolute certainty that Pump3D can greatly reduce athletes’ fatigue, because their alertness can be due to the consumption of caffeine instead. Since the logical opposite of answer choice (D) weakens the conclusion of the argument, it is the correct answer to this Assumption question. Answer choice (E): Whether guarana consumption has any serious side effects is irrelevant to the question of whether it helps reduce athletes’ fatigue. Even if guarana had many side effects, this would only be of concern if the author recommended or endorsed the consumption of guarana extract. The scope of the argument is much narrower, making answer choice (E) incorrect.

Answer 54

All Any (anytime, anyplace, anybody, etc.) Every (every time, everybody, etc.) Whenever Each

Answer 55

* Only* signals the necessary term * Only if* signals the necessary term * The only* signals the sufficient term

Answer 56

"No X unless Y" translates to "If X then Y" "A unless B" translates to "If not A then B"

Answer 57

* Reverse the terms * Negate *each* term * Change *and* to *or* and change *or* to *and* (whenever applicable)

Answer 58

1. Overview 2. Sketch 3. Rules 4. Deductions 5. Questions

Answer 59

Overview - The SEAL Questions * **Situation** - What is the real-world scenario being described? What is the deliverable information--an ordered list, a calendar, a chart showing what's matched up? * **Entities** - Who or what are the "moving parts," the people or things I'm distributing, selecting, sequencing or matching? * **Action** - What is the specific action--distribution, selection, sequencing, matching or a combination of those--that I'm performing on the entities? * **Limitations** - Does the game state parameters (e.g. select four of seven, sequence the entities one perday, etc.) that restrict how I'll set up and sketch the game?

Answer 60

**Step #4 is Deductions:** * **Blocks of entities** - two or more players grouped together * **Limited** **options** - rules or restrictions that limit the overall to one of two acceptable arrangements * **Established entities** - a player locked into a specific space or group * **Number restrictions** - rules or limitations that provide guidance about the number of entities assigned to a group or space * **Duplications** - entities that appear in two or more rules and allow the rules to be combined

Answer 61

Sequencing games are asking you to put things in order. * Chronologically (time) * Spatially (vertically or horizontally) * By rank (similar to a top ten list) * By suze or amount (mass)

Answer 62

Sequencing rules basically tell you one or more of the following: * the order in which two or more entities are placed * the number of spaces between two or more entities * the slot(s) in which a given entity can or cannot be placed

Answer 63

When analyzing or drawing a rule, always ask: * What does the rule restrict? * What does the rule leave undetermined? * Is the rule stated in affirmative or negative terms? * If stated affirmatively, can I learn something concrete from its negative implications (or vice verse)? * Can I place the rule directly into the sketch framework * If not, how can I best draw the rule to account for what it does and does not restrict?

Answer 64

Selection rules tell you one or more of the following things: * That at least one of two entities must be rejected * That at least one of two entities must be selected * That two entities must be selected or rejected as a pair (one cannot be selected or rejected without the

Answer 65

Distribution rules tell you one or more of the following things: * Entities that must or cannot be assigned to the same group * The number of entities that must, can or cannot be assigned to a group or the relative sizes among groups * Conditions triggering the assignment of an entity to a particular group

Answer 66

Matching rules tell you one or more of the following things: * Attributes that must or cannot be matched to the same entity * The number of attributes that must, can or cannot be assigned to an entity or the relative numbers among entities * Conditions triggering the assignment of an attribute to a particular entity

Answer 67

Hybrid rules tell you one of the following: * How the first of the actions is restricted * How the second of the actions is restricted * How the two actions are restricted simultaneously

Answer 68

* Acceptability questions * Must be/Could be questions * New "if" questions * Other question types * Complete and accurate list questions * Completely determine questions * Numerical questions * Minimum/Maximum questions * Earliest/Latest questions * "How many" questions * Rule alteration questions * Rule substitution questions * Supply the "if" questions

Answer 69

* **Outside the Scope** - a choice containing a statement that is too broad, too narrow, or beyond the purview of the stimulus * **Irrelevant Comparison** - a choice that compares two items or attributes in a way not germane to the author's argument or statements * **Extreme** - a choice containing language too emphatic to be supported by the stimulus; extreme choices are often (though, not always) characterized by such words such as all, never, every, or none. * **Distortion** - a choice that mentions details from the stimulus * **180** - a choice that directly contradicts what the correct answer must say * **Faulty** use of detail - a choice that accurately states something from the stimulus but in a manner that answers the question incorrectly; this type is rarely used in logical reasoning

Answer 70

Almost always match one of these six types * Prediction (x will or will not happen in the future) * Recommendation (we should or should not do x) * Comparison (x is taller/more/shorter than y) * Assertion of fact (X is true or X is false) * If/The * Value judgement