Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

LSAT > LR > Flashcards

LR Flashcards

1
Q

primary conclusion cannot

A

be used as evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

role of statement

A

note the statement cited

analyse the argument to characterise the role played by the statement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

argument’s strategies

A

(how does the evidence help the conclusion)

  • analogy
  • example
  • counterexample
  • appeal to authority
  • elimination of alternatives
  • ad hominem
  • means/ requirements
  • definition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

analogy

A

draws parallels between two unrelated but purportedly similar situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

purportedly

A

allegedly

as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

example

A

specific case to justify a generalisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

counterexample

A

seeks to discredit an opponent’s argument by citing a specific case in which the opponent’s conclusion appears to be invalid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

appeal to authority

A

cites an expert or another figure as support for her conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

elimination of alternatives

A

lists possibilities and discredits all but one

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

ad hominem

A

attacks her opponent’s personal credibility rather than the substance of her opponent’s argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

means/requirements

A

argues that something is needed to achieve a desired result

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

definition

A

defines a term in a way that helps to justify her argument or undermine/ point out a contradiction in an opponent’s argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

question type where you need to identify the conclusion

A

argument

  • main point
  • role of statement
  • method of argument
  • point at issue
  • parallel reasoning

assumption family

  • sufficient
  • necessary
  • flaw
  • strengthen/ weaken
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

question type where you should NOT look to identify the conclusion

A

inference

paradox

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

question type where you SOMETIMES need to identify the conclusion

A

principle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

strategies for finding conclusions

A

keywords
identify conclusion first
and define vague/ ambiguous terms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

SINCE

A

since- evidence- ,- conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

where to look for the conclusion

A

bottom
top
middle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

“will” in a conclusion

A

predicition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

subsidiary conclusion

A

conclusion that supports the primary conclusion by acting as evidence

most common in role of statements questions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

because test

A

relationship between subsidiary and primary conclusion

direction of evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

after all =

A

evidence

conclusion before it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

must =

A

conclusion (recommendation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

inner monologue

A

x3
ask the author why and how questions
keep paraphrasing
avoid grabbing at the author’s phrases and language

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
must also be true
inference
26
how to read arguments
find conclusion and paraphrase it take the evidence phrase by phrase paraphrase and use mental images/ scratch work sum up the relationship of evidence to conclusion
27
filler
5 types - aside (even though) - alternative POV - example - background info - subordinate evidence
28
alt pov
argument goes off on a tangent about what another speaker thinks, usually at the beginning, and usually followed by a contrast keyword transitioning to the arguer's rebuttal alt pov are almost always rebutted okay to cross it out
29
asides
although/ while/ whether or not/ regardless | info of disinterest
30
therefore always has
some evidence before it
31
background info
orienting info contrarily: evidence must answer 'why' usually appears at thebeginning
32
subordinate evidence
explains how the evidence came to be | usually repeated)
33
sub conclusion =
main evidence | sub ev--> main ev (sub con) --> main con
34
"for"
conclusion before it
35
main point
one sentence test (most emphasised idea) | common trap answers: evidence or sub conclusion/ distortion or extreme
36
method of argument
identify the conclusion characterise how the author gets there use keywords focus on structure - X: distortion: did the author really do this?
37
role of statement
find statement find conclusion find relationship between the two
38
point at issue
decision tree 1. does speaker 1 have an opinion - no= wrong - yes 2. does speaker 2 have an opinion? no= wrong yes 3. do they disagree? no= wrong yes= correct
39
“What and the Why” test
to help distinguish between evidence and conclusion. A statement that answers the question “What does the author say?” is generally a conclusion, while statements that answer the question “why does she say that?” are generally the evidence for that conclusion
40
role of statement, wrong answers
evidence is said to support more evidence instead of actually supporting the conclusion
41
method of argument
identify type of evidence look at structure of argument how does evidence relate to the conclusion
42
analogy
need 2 different scenarios that are compared in some way
43
self contradictory
two impossible definitions
44
post hoc
The author is assuming a causal connection from a temporal correlation. The general form of the argument is: Y happened after X; therefore, X must have caused Y. the “post hoc” fallacy (from “post hoc ergo propter hoc”—”after this, therefore because of this”).
45
equivalent
+ve to +ve Alex is a law student. Therefore, Alex enjoys a good argument. mc
46
representative
flaw | bob is a law student, and really enjoys cappuccino. Therefore, law students must like cappuccino.
47
Need one for the other
-ve to -ve Sammy has not taken the LSAT. Therefore, Sammy must not study law mc
48
mutually exclusive
+ve to -ve | Josie is a law student. Therefore, Josie cannot go out every night.
49
MC?
mismatched concepts | usually in conclusion or primary evidence
50
overlooked possibilities - definite language
'must' correlation vs causation no other causes or reasons... 'without.. will' necessary vs sufficient (bad formal logic) prediction based on the past recommendation (what about the bad stuff) possibility to certainty
51
weaken
ARC Alternate cause Reverse relationship Coincidence
52
causal argument
common in flaw and weaken questions ARC conclusion: X causes Y
53
less common mismatched concepts
faulty analogy whole vs parts equivocation (using a term in 2 different ways) conflating numbers and percentages
54
arguments common for OP
predictions recommendations (cost? benefit? priorities?) causality
55
inference question approach
1- note the most concrete statements 2- combine statements (mini LG deductions) 3- use keywords 4- use formal logic 5- use uncertain statements: reject extreme answers stimulus is often not an argument (just a collection of facts/statements) in general/extreme unlikely to be right answer
56
not guaranteed
not extreme language | maybe
57
stimulus with extreme language
answer can have extreme language
58
must be true
inference questions | FL common
59
follows logically except
inference q out of the scope does not follow logically
60
Necessary Assumption questions often contain the words:
"Depends" "Requires"  "Relies" "Assumes"
61
Sufficient Assumption questions often contain the words:
"Follows logically if...assumed" "Properly inferred/drawn if...assumed" "Enables" "Allows"
62
how to turn tricky Logical Reasoning words into easy "If X then Y" conditionals 
"except," "unless," "until," and "without" into conditional statements. The "introducing necessary and then negating sufficient" way. Take any of the annoying words ("except," "unless," "until," and "without") as introducing the necessary condition. In other words, whatever immediately follows one of these words is your necessary condition. Then, whatever other clause is present in the conditional statement will, when negated, become your sufficient condition. The phrase "Not B unless A" would first become "Not B then A." But we're not done yet! We still have to negate "Not B" to become "B." So...we have B ---> A. No need to take the contrapositive or rearrange anything.
63
FLAWS: common, less common, rare
common: overlooked possibilities, causation v correlation, confusing necessary and sufficient less common: equivocation, parts to whole, circular reasoning, ev contradicts conc rare: conflating numerical values with % age values, using ev of belief for conc of fact, ad hominem, absence of ev..., failing to ATQ
64
assumption questions
2 types: sufficient (if assumed) and necessary (depends, relies, requires) sufficient: MMC (between ev/conc or (rarely) ev/ev) necessary: MMC then OP (can be shown by extreme lang) if MMC, cross out the terms that match use proof test for MMC (whatever guarantees the conc) wrong answers usually contain the exact terms that are present in the stimulus MMC look for synonyms of them in right answers can be more extreme lang in the right answer use denial test for OP (paraphrase for complex answers) when you have two answers that talk about MMC, one will get the relationship between the MMC backwards (flow +ve/-ve)

LSAT (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions