LR

Question 1

primary conclusion cannot

Answer 1

be used as evidence

Question 2

role of statement

Answer 2

note the statement cited

analyse the argument to characterise the role played by the statement

Question 3

argument’s strategies

Answer 3

(how does the evidence help the conclusion)

• analogy
• example
• counterexample
• appeal to authority
• elimination of alternatives
• ad hominem
• means/ requirements
• definition

Question 4

analogy

Answer 4

draws parallels between two unrelated but purportedly similar situations

Question 5

purportedly

Answer 5

allegedly

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

Question 6

example

Answer 6

specific case to justify a generalisation

Question 7

counterexample

Answer 7

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

Question 8

appeal to authority

Answer 8

cites an expert or another figure as support for her conclusion

Question 9

elimination of alternatives

Answer 9

lists possibilities and discredits all but one

Question 10

ad hominem

Answer 10

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

Question 11

means/requirements

Answer 11

argues that something is needed to achieve a desired result

Question 12

definition

Answer 12

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

Question 13

question type where you need to identify the conclusion

Answer 13

argument

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

assumption family

• sufficient
• necessary
• flaw
• strengthen/ weaken

Question 14

question type where you should NOT look to identify the conclusion

Answer 14

inference

paradox

Question 15

question type where you SOMETIMES need to identify the conclusion

Answer 15

principle

Question 16

strategies for finding conclusions

Answer 16

keywords
identify conclusion first
and define vague/ ambiguous terms

Question 17

SINCE

Answer 17

since- evidence- ,- conclusion

Question 18

where to look for the conclusion

Answer 18

bottom
top
middle

Question 19

“will” in a conclusion

Answer 19

predicition

Question 20

subsidiary conclusion

Answer 20

conclusion that supports the primary conclusion by acting as evidence

most common in role of statements questions

Question 21

because test

Answer 21

relationship between subsidiary and primary conclusion

direction of evidence

Question 22

after all =

Answer 22

evidence

conclusion before it

Question 23

must =

Answer 23

conclusion (recommendation)

Question 24

inner monologue

Answer 24

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

Question 25

must also be true

Answer 25

inference

Question 26

how to read arguments

Answer 26

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

Question 27

filler

Answer 27

5 types

• aside (even though)
• alternative POV
• example
• background info
• subordinate evidence

Question 28

alt pov

Answer 28

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

Question 29

asides

Answer 29

although/ while/ whether or not/ regardless

info of disinterest

Question 30

therefore always has

Answer 30

some evidence before it

Question 31

background info

Answer 31

orienting info
contrarily: evidence must answer ‘why’
usually appears at thebeginning

Question 32

subordinate evidence

Answer 32

explains how the evidence came to be

usually repeated)

Question 33

sub conclusion =

Answer 33

main evidence

sub ev–> main ev (sub con) –> main con

Question 34

“for”

Answer 34

conclusion before it

Question 35

main point

Answer 35

one sentence test (most emphasised idea)

common trap answers: evidence or sub conclusion/ distortion or extreme

Question 36

method of argument

Answer 36

identify the conclusion
characterise how the author gets there
use keywords focus on structure
- X: distortion: did the author really do this?

Question 37

role of statement

Answer 37

find statement
find conclusion
find relationship between the two

Question 38

point at issue

Answer 38

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

Question 39

“What and the Why” test

Answer 39

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

Question 40

role of statement, wrong answers

Answer 40

evidence is said to support more evidence instead of actually supporting the conclusion

Question 41

method of argument

Answer 41

identify type of evidence
look at structure of argument
how does evidence relate to the conclusion

Question 42

analogy

Answer 42

need 2 different scenarios that are compared in some way

Question 43

self contradictory

Answer 43

two impossible definitions

Question 44

post hoc

Answer 44

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”).

Question 45

equivalent

Answer 45

+ve to +ve
Alex is a law student. Therefore, Alex enjoys a good argument.
mc

Question 46

representative

Answer 46

flaw

bob is a law student, and really enjoys cappuccino. Therefore, law students must like cappuccino.

Question 47

Need one for the other

Answer 47

-ve to -ve
Sammy has not taken the LSAT. Therefore, Sammy must not study law
mc

Question 48

mutually exclusive

Answer 48

+ve to -ve

Josie is a law student. Therefore, Josie cannot go out every night.

Question 49

MC?

Answer 49

mismatched concepts

usually in conclusion or primary evidence

Question 50

overlooked possibilities - definite language

Answer 50

‘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

Question 51

weaken

Answer 51

ARC
Alternate cause
Reverse relationship
Coincidence

Question 52

causal argument

Answer 52

common in flaw and weaken questions
ARC
conclusion: X causes Y

Question 53

less common mismatched concepts

Answer 53

faulty analogy
whole vs parts
equivocation (using a term in 2 different ways)
conflating numbers and percentages

Question 54

arguments common for OP

Answer 54

predictions
recommendations (cost? benefit? priorities?)
causality

Question 55

inference question approach

Answer 55

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

Question 56

not guaranteed

Answer 56

not extreme language

maybe

Question 57

stimulus with extreme language

Answer 57

answer can have extreme language

Question 58

must be true

Answer 58

inference questions

FL common

Question 59

follows logically except

Answer 59

inference q
out of the scope
does not follow logically

Question 60

Necessary Assumption questionsoften contain the words:

Answer 60

“Depends”

“Requires”

“Relies”

“Assumes”

Question 61

Sufficient Assumption questionsoften contain the words:

Answer 61

“Follows logically if…assumed”

“Properly inferred/drawn if…assumed”

“Enables”

“Allows”

Question 62

how to turn tricky Logical Reasoning words into easy “If X then Y” conditionals

Answer 62

“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.

Question 63

FLAWS: common, less common, rare

Answer 63

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

Question 64

assumption questions

Answer 64

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)