Week 1: Comparison (LR) Flashcards
Comparisons are extremely common on the LSAT (at 37% in the LR section) and are most common in
- Strengthen / Weaken
- Paradox
- Most Supported
- Necessary Assumption
- Flaw
Correct answer to Strengthen / Weaken in comparison prompts
Comparisons are common in strengthen / weaken prompts.
Strengthen: show that two things are similar
Weaken: show that there’s a meaningful difference between two things.
Correct answer to Paradox in comparison prompts
usually involves two different things/groups, and the difference between them is surprising.
Solve: introduce a new difference that shows there’s a meaningful difference between the two things.
Correct answer to Most Supported in comparison prompts
Solve: complete an analogy.
There’s usually a comparison between two things and the question will ask you for which AC is best supported based on the comparison.
Also, Must Supported Questions are answered using a causal difference maker.
- e.g. We weren’t able to teach 3 year olds their phone number. Then we put it into a song and they were able to learn it.
- the causal difference maker was that the song helped children to learn the phone number.
Correct answer to Necessary Assumption in comparison prompts
Most answers in assumption questions that seem obvious usually require that the reader spot the similarity or difference (between 2 things) underlying the assumption.
e.g.
- Hula hoops were a brief fad in the 1950’s, despite the recent rise in the popularity of hula hoops, they will be forgotten again soon.
- assumes the present day is similar to the 1950’s.
- Jeremy’s ad is well aimed at 20-30 years old, but it has some questionable race issues. Thus we should go with Peggy’s ad.
- assumes Peggy’s ad doesn’t have the unwanted racial issues.
Correct answer to Flaw in comparison prompts
Some flaw questions present a dubious comparison.
Sometimes, the correct answer means realizing a Part v. Whole error, other times it’s realizing a Sampling error (overgeneralization).
e.g. Each member of the Town Council has committed tax fraud before. Thus, the Town Council has committed tax fraud before.
- Part v. Whole Error
e.g. The Carver skateboard I got from Lois broke within two months. Thus Carver skateboards must not very durable.
- Sampling Error (overgeneralization)
Other Comparisons:
Plans & Recommendations
Basically a comparison between two worlds where one follows a certain plan/recommendation and where one doesn’t.
E.g. Luisa wants to improve her RC score. Since mindfulness breathing improves concentration, she should start a mindfulness regimen.
- (this is a comparison between the world where she doesn’t follow the breathing regimen, and one where she does).
Other Comparisons:
Overall Value Judgements
Comparisons between two things (x and y), where the author recommends choosing one over the other without fairly weighing both options.
E.g. Unlike the new tablet from ‘Snapple,’ the ‘Macrosoft’ tablet has a stylus. Thus, Macrosoft’s tablet is better.
- (this comparison suggest that Macrosoft is better based on one aspect. We never discussed the cons of the macrosoft tablet, nor the pros or cons of the snapple device).
- we need to weigh the pros and cons of each.
Other Comparisons:
Relative v. Absolute
Comparing one thing relative to another, then making an absolute claim based on that comparison.
The Eiffel Tower is shorter than the Empire State Building. Thus the Eiffel Tower is short.
- (Obviously yes the ESB is taller than the ET, but that doesn’t mean the ET is short (just by itself)).
Other Comparisons:
Numbers v. Percentages
Similar to ‘Relative v. Absolute’
Fraction / ratio v. the raw total is something tested often in the LSAT.
E.g. This year, a higher percentage of entries to the cooking competition are chocolate chip cookies. Apparently, more people decided to go with this class choice than in year’s past.
Let’s do the math!
Total Entries CC entries CC% ------------------------------------------------------------------- Last Year 12 6 50% ------------------------------------------------------------------- This Year 10 6 60%
- The argument assumes the number of ppl who made cc cookies went up this year, when really it’s just the number of total entries shrank, so naturally the percentage of cc cookies is going to take up a larger slice of the pie.
Other Comparisons:
Anti-Causal
Denying that one thing had an effect on another thing.
Harvey, unlike Frank, got a personal trainer to help loose some weight. But it was of no use, because both Harvey and Frank lost 10 lbs.
This is an anti-causal conclusion, in a stimulus that uses comparative reasoning. You need to point to a difference in the two situations being compared.
- couldn’t it be that Harvey just weighs alot and is working really hard. Maybe the best he could do was burn 10 lbs, whereas Frank is just really lazy. He could’ve burned way more by this time, but out of laziness only burned 10.
