LSAT Short Arguments - Bad Habits Flashcards
Read Conclusion First for Assumption and Structure questions.
Look for repeated terms/patterns in Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning! e.g. In PT 77 #5: person & genes
Ask DO I NEED TO KNOW for necessary, and IS IT ENOUGH for sufficient
For EVAL, make up answers to each AC, and see if your made up answers STNs or WKNS, if so, that’s a good AC!
For Assumption Qs,
- Focus on and build mental picture of Conclusion, maybe speculate what flaws you are going to see, get ready to relate everything to CONCLUSION
- start reading at top of prompt and continuously think “how does this RELATE to my conclusion, what is supporting what”
- sort out irrelevant background/chatter from the relevant EVIDENCE.
Our Types of Qs that have “if E then C” ACs. And READ from the IF in the ACs!!
Flaw Question Headers: A headerless Flaw Question may just offer ACs describing the flaw. Easy. But if there is a header, remember “forgets….” means you need to ignore that header and consider it a WEAKEN, and if you see “assumes…” just ignore the header and read as NECESSARY
Don’t forget to look out for TICNIE – concept shift assumpmtions are always if-then
Ass-SUF - you prefer stronger language, especially if you are down to 2 ACs! might feel like overkill but remember it’s sufficient
Ass-NEC … for AC you are considering, do I NEEED to KNOW test, then always do negation test on AC you are considering
Draw Causal Arrow if Causal Language in Conclusion Causal Language in the Conclusion? Get that C-arrow on the page, beware entities mentioned in conclusion NOT mentioned in Evidence
Draw if-then Arrow for Concept Shift Assumption - See Soc Term in Ev and again in C? See Ticnie? Concept Shift! And Concept Shift always has an assumption in terms of If-Then, so DRAW ARROW
How is the jump occurring? For assumption based Qs, take note of how the Conclusion compares to the Evidence. What supports what in the Evidence, and see how that jump was made. REALITY to THOUGHT and vice versa
Draw seesaw w/ “apparent winner” and scope: for comparison-comparison and comparison-rec (remember, only if comparison is entirely in the conclusion, not in evidence, that would be baseline: draw seesaw w/ asserted winner, include *scope of comparison i.e. better for your wallet* on the fulcrume
A definitional type sttmt is indeed an IF (defn/description) –> THEN (actual term being defined) relp
Watch out for repeated qualifiers that have SLIGHT differences in front of repeated qualifiiers…E.g. the difference between “reduce stress” and “very high stress” in PT 76.2.12 Gingko made the correct AC be B. So keep an eye out for subtle shifts in similar terms via qualifiers!
.
