LSAT Short Arguments - How to ID + Process More Assumption Based: Evaluate, Parallel Flaw, and Reasoning Conforms IDs and process

Question 1

“evaluate the argument”

“assess the validity…”

Answer 1

Assumption - Evaluate

Process: Eval stem tells you there is an Assumption Flaw in the argument.

1. ID and Assess the Conclusion
2. Distill Evidence
3. Find Assumption

All ACs are in Q form…Correct AC will pose a QUESTION that addresses that Assumption Flaw (i.e. unstated evidence), and make the conclusion more or less likely to be true. Does answering the “question” posed in the AC help deal with the assumption?

For each AC, just compare to assumption, and invent answers to each AC in your mind, and ask, would this STR? Would it WKN? KEEP an eye on AC scope, if it says How much, How many, Will it...etc If it clearly does one or the other, it is correct AC but STAY WITHIN SCOPE OF CONCLUSION

Question 2

parallel flaw…

flawed reasoning most similar to above

• exhibits a flaw most like the one above.*
• error in reasoning similar to which one of the following….*
• which one of the following most closely parallels the questionable reasoning cited above…*
• (yes, even though the word *reasoning* is in there, it’s a parallel flaw and not parallel reasoning, because of *questionable*)*

Answer 2

Assumption - Parallel Flaw

Process: Similar to Parallel Reasoning (which is a type of Structure question) except you will need to do Assumption Analysis to find FLAW in main argument (break apart)

*note: when checking to see if an AC matches up, the order of elements within an or stmt doesn’t matter, but what serves as trigger and result of course does matter*

ACs will have an entire argument in them! But don’t get pulled in by the entire argument in each. You are trying to find the DISTINCTIVE PIECE (i.e. FLAWS).

Process - often requires symbolization for PR Qs (especially for SHORTER main arguments). Basically you are matching DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS of the pieces of the FLAW (conclusion and evidence)

**How closely must the Distinctive Elements match? Note that a Parallel Reasoning correct AC will look for pretty strict matching (e.g. 51% word in Arg Evidence needs 51% counterpart in AC Evidence) between the Distinctive Elements evidence and conclusion in AC and argument. It is focusing on the Reasoning (i.e. overall argument) not a Flaw.

But Parallel Flaw is more likely to allow wiggle room between the Distinctive Elements, i.e. 51% word in Arg Evidence may be matched by 100% word in AC evidence. Less parallelness needed since focus is on FLAW.**

1. Read Question Stem
2. First ID the conclusion in main argument, do assumption analysis, find FLAW!
3. Identify DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS (aka what is difficult to prove) in the conclusion in the main. You have not even looked at evidence!
4. AC conclusions: Now immediately proceed to ACs, eliminate ACs w/ conclusions that do not have those same DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS (probably 2 or 3 AC eliminated)
5. AC evidence: ID the evidence in main argument, identify DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS of the evidence. Proceed to ACs, eliminate ACs w/ evidence that do not have the same distinctive elements

**note if the arg has more than one piece of evidence, or evidence and counterevidence, consider the RELP between the pieces of evidence and counterevidence to in itself be a DISTINCTIVE ELEMENT**

**Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning Qs can have easy kills: e.g. if you main arg has 2 if-then stmts with absolute language in Evidence, and 1 if-then stmts with absolute language in Conclusion…you can IMMEDIATELY kill ACs without exactly 2 if-then in E and 1 if-then in C….Want same #** … but to differentiate between remaining 2 or 3 ACs you may need to SYMBOLIZE ACs

Note: Logic matters but order of argument does not matter!

Correct AC will never be a perfect argument for Parallel Flaw. Maybe in Parallel Reasoning, but not here. So if you see a perfect arg for an AC to Parallel Flaw question, it is wrong.

Look out for Same Subject Trap

Question 3

• “argument conforms to which of the following principles…”*
• “reasoning…conforms to following principle…”*
• “argument conforms to the following generalization…”*
• “conforms to following proposition…”*

Answer 3

Reasoning Conforms RCON (not a common Q)

(similar to Situation Conforms q type, except it is a Reasoning Conforms)

1. ID conclusion
2. Distill evidence
3. Find Assumption – there will be an assumption-flaw in the argument

Correct AC will ATTEMPT to state the assumption (vast majority of correct ACs will have E and C and a link.) hence making the Assumption and hence Conclusion more likely to be true. Maybe slightly broader/narrower and stronger/weaker than argument, but not significantly so. Prefer WEAK language!

*note: read Q stem closely! sometimes there will be a qualifier in the Q stem as to what is being asked about, i.e. part of the argument may be irrelevant to the question*

(similar to Ass-Suf and Ass-Nec questions)

think of “conform” as meaning “close” (i.e. slightly more or slightly less)

Question 4

For 4 types of Assumption questions: Assumption Sufficient, Assumption Necessary, RCON, and Strengthen…what does it mean if the ACs are in form of “evidence”…“conclusion”?

Answer 4

It means that if an AC has evidence matching the main argument evidence, and conclusion matching the main argument conclusion, you indeed have an implicit PERFECT ASSUMPTION and know it is the correct AC.

**don’t forget contrapositive is fair game!

**this also applies SOMETIMES to other types of assumption qs, esp Concept Shift

**will see 5-9 questions per LSAT with E to C form ACs