LSAT Words: conclusion IDENTIFIER words Flashcards
What are the common conclusion IDENTIFIER words?
**note from Arg Lesson 5 pg 167: take any CONDITIONAL QUALIFIERS (if blah blah blah, then) in a Conclusion as TRUTH, step into the ConclusionWorld of the speaker. This is the SPEAKER’S WAY OF CONTROLLING THE ARGUMENT… creates hypothetical worlds… and this “if” in this unique usage does not speak to the other worlds, does not weaken other worlds (sidebar – if UT quarterback has a good game UT will win, you are not saying anything about when UT quarterback plays badly)
So if you see a conditional qualifier in the conclusion, STAY in the world of that if statement, and trust the truth of that IF world, but doubt the rest of the conclusion statement…stay in the world where the argument is
Almost always (95%) IDs conclusion in Assumption or Structure Based Qs, but not necessarily in Main Point Qs.
- hence (as a consequence…conclusion)
- therefore (as a consequence…conclusion)
- thus (as a consequence…conclusion)
- so (as a consequence…conclusion)
- since (due to…evidence)
- because (due to…evidence) **note that “because” can also be a misdirection when it is serving as causal language in the arg not serviing as CI
- Consequently
- For that reason
- Then
- should have, should (perhaps comparison-rec flaw as well)
- To see this… (“this” reference to preceding conclusion, “to see” about to present evidence)
- as seen by the fact that… (“as seen” referring to the preceding conclusion, “that” about to present evidence)
Note that directional and flow language can be the conclusion identifier language
In MP Qs, those words above are a misdirection 66% of time, conclusion ID 33% of time. In MP Qs, contrast words are often great conclusion IDs.
After all…evidence is a good conclusion identifier for all Q types
Conclusion can also be ID’d by: chatty language (clearly, obviously, as plausible as that sounds), contrast language, substance of argument, anti-conclusion language (in which case you must find the target of the anti-conclusion language), directional language (supported by, supports...) or even the language in Question Stem itself
Contrast words like BUT can be conclusion identifiers how?
Two ways: by looking fwd, or referring backward:
They can directly signal upcoming conclusion: “But, conclusionconclusionconclusion…”
Or they can basically mean “this is mistaken” referring to the anti-conclusion above, “But, evidenceevidenceevidence…”
Anti-conclusion identifiers
“Quite the contrary”
“I disagree”
“…is mistaken”
If you see this language referring to the OPOV, the conclusion will simply be the NEGATED version of the anti-conclusion.
Note you need to NEGATE the anti-conclusion, not polar opposite. I.e. negation of cannot is COULD not must.
