Logical Reasoning: Articles

##Logical Reasoning overview

• Two scored sections with 24-26 questions each
• 35 minutes
• Logical Reasoning makes up roughly half of your total points.

###Anatomy of a Logical Reasoning question

A Logical Reasoning question is made up of these parts:

[[☃ image 1]]

• Passage/stimulus: This text is where we’ll find the argument or the information that forms the basis for answering the question. Sometimes there will be two arguments, if two people are presented as speakers.

• Question/task: This text, found beneath the stimulus, poses a question. For example, it may ask what assumption is necessary to the argument, or what must be true based on the statements above.

• Choices: You’ll be presented with five choices, of which you may select only one. You’ll see us refer to the correct choice as the “answer” throughout Khan Academy’s LSAT practice.

###What can I do to tackle the Logical Reasoning section most effectively?

✓ Understand the task: Many students find it helpful—and time-saving—to read the question before reading the passage. This allows them to read with a purpose. Many students who read the passage first wind up re-reading the passage after reading the question—and that can use up precious time. Give this strategy a try and see if you like it!

✓ Understand the passage: For many question types, it’s useful to break the passage down into its conclusion and support. For other questions, it’s more useful to piece the claims together. For some questions, it’s most efficient to home in on the passage’s conclusion. There are many different Logical Reasoning question types, and we’ll show you what’s best to read for in each question type.

✓ Take time to think: For some question types, the most efficient approach is to make a prediction of what you think the answer will be—before you look at the choices. For other question types, it’s not as easy to predict the actual answer, but you’ll still want to stop to review what task you’re trying to accomplish.

✓ Evaluate the choices: Once you’ve set yourself up for success—either with a specifically-worded prediction, or with an otherwise clear idea of what you’re looking for— evaluate the choices by asking yourself, e.g.,“Does this choice match my prediction?” “Does this choice have to be true based on the statements above?”.

Top tip: Use Your Own Words
When you put what you’re looking for into your own words, you gain control of the task. Know what you’re looking for before you start looking.

Top tip: Don’t skimp on the thought process
Many early LSAT students start reading the choices before they have a clear idea of what they’re looking for, and they waste valuable time looking for a choice that “feels right.” The choices can be very distracting—even dizzying—when you start to read them too early! Do a little bit of work up front, and you’ll actually save time.

Top tip: Skip questions All Logical Reasoning questions are not created equal. Questions are lower- or higher-difficulty for different reasons—some questions discuss relatively simple subject matter in the stimulus but have very tempting wrong choices, while other questions are high-difficulty due to the density of the passage. Still other questions are lower difficulty overall. Be prepared for a variety of challenges in the Logical Reasoning questions, and be prepared to skip when it makes sense to. When you skip, though, circle the question and return to it if you have time.

Top tip: Don't leave anything blank There's no penalty for wrong answers, so if you decide to skip a question, make sure to fill in a guess before time runs out!

###Dos and Don’ts

The earlier you shed ineffective habits and adopt effective ones, the easier (and more enjoyable!) your road to success in Logical Reasoning will be. These lists are in no way comprehensive, but we’d like to start you out with some ideas to keep in mind:

• Don’t panic: You’re not obligated to do the questions in any order, or even to do a given question at all. Many students find success maximizing their score by skipping a select handful of questions entirely, either because they know a question will take too long to solve, or because they just don’t know how to solve it.

• Don’t be influenced by your own views, knowledge, or experience about an issue or topic: The LSAT doesn’t require any outside expertise. All of the information that you need will be presented in the passage. When you add your own unwarranted assumptions, you’re moving away from the precision of the test’s language and toward more errors. This is one of the most common mistakes that students make on the LSAT!

• Don’t time yourself too early on: When learning a new skill, it’s good policy to avoid introducing time considerations until you’re ready. If you were learning piano, you wouldn’t play a piece at full-speed before you’d practiced the passages very slowly, and then less slowly, and then less slowly still. Give yourself time and room to build your skill and confidence. Only when you’re feeling good about the mechanics of your approach should you introduce a stopwatch.

• Do read with your pencil: Active reading strategies can help you better understand logical reasoning arguments and prevent you from “zoning out” while you read. Active readers like to underline or bracket an argument’s conclusion when they find it. They also like to circle keywords, such as “however”, “therefore”, “likely”, “all”, and many others that you’ll learn throughout your studies with us. If you’re reading with your pencil, you’re much less likely to wonder what you just read in the last minute.

• Do learn all of the question types: An effective approach to a necessary assumption question is very different from an effective approach to an explain question, even though the passage will look very similar in both. In fact, the same argument passage could theoretically be used to ask you a question about the conclusion, its assumptions or vulnerabilities to criticism, its technique, the role of one of its statements, a principle it displays, or what new info might strengthen or weaken it!

• Do spend time on the fundamentals: The temptation to churn through a high volume of questions can be strong, but strong LSAT-takers carefully and patiently learn the basics. For example, you’ll need to be able to identify a conclusion quickly and accurately before you’ll be able to progress with assumptions or flaws (identifying gaps in arguments). Similarly, a firm understanding of basic conditional reasoning will be invaluable as you approach many challenging questions. Be patient with yourself!

###Next steps

You can choose your own LSAT adventure on Khan Academy!

You may wish to take a diagnostic test or try a few practice problems on your own by heading into our skill practice area.

You might prefer to read more articles, or watch lessons and worked example videos in our Lessons tab.

If you found this article helpful, come back later if you’re feeling stuck!

##Logical Reasoning Arguments

The Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT assesses your ability to analyze arguments.

In this article, we’ll introduce you to the components of an argument and how to recognize them. If this is new to you, it’s a good idea to spend quite a bit of time on these foundational skills. Work through argument-based questions slowly and carefully as you build up your confidence!

###What is an argument?

An argument is a set of statements made up, at minimum, of the following parts:

• A main conclusion: This statement is a claim that expresses what the arguer is trying to persuade us to accept, whether or not it actually is true.
• Evidence: Also known as premises or support, the arguer provides these statements in order to show us that the conclusion is true. Essentially, the evidence answers the question, “Why do you believe [the conclusion] to be true?” The simplest arguments on the LSAT have just one piece of evidence; more complex arguments will have several.

Top tip: Order doesn’t matter
There is no set order to an argument’s components; the conclusion could be at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, and the same is true for any other component.

Note: When we analyze arguments in this way, we don’t analyze their tone or style. Be prepared for the argument components to appear in a variety of writing styles.

###Conclusion + evidence

The simplest arguments consist of one main conclusion and one piece of evidence. Here’s an example:

• Sarah will probably receive a job offer, because she has ten years of experience.

Which piece is the conclusion, and which piece is the evidence? Click below when you feel confident in your answer.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

###Conclusion + evidence + intermediate conclusion

More complex arguments might include something called an intermediate conclusion. Also known as a subsidiary conclusion (or “sub-conclusion” for short), this is a claim that acts both as a conclusion and as evidence. In other words, it’s a conclusion based on evidence, but it’s a conclusion that leads to yet another conclusion. For that reason, the intermediate conclusion can’t be the main conclusion.

Let’s modify our simple argument from above so that it contains an intermediate conclusion:

• Sarah will probably receive a job offer, because she has ten years of experience. That means that she’ll soon pay me back for the money I lent her.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

Can you see how the new main conclusion is that Sarah will soon pay me back? That’s because Sarah receiving a job offer is the reason to believe that she’ll pay me back. So Sarah receiving a job offer is the conclusion for her having ten years of experience, but it’s also the evidence for the prediction that she’ll soon pay me back.

###Conclusion + evidence + background information

This argument structure is very common on the LSAT. Background information is provided to us in order to “set the stage” and orient us to the situation. Let’s look at our original argument again:

• Sarah will probably receive a job offer, because she has ten years of experience.

You might be asking yourself, “Who’s Sarah? What job? Experience in what?” and that’s where background information comes in. Here’s a longer version, including background information:

• One of this neighborhood’s residents has been complaining about his sister Sarah having been unemployed for so long. She’s applying for programming jobs at many companies, but she only received her first interview invite last week. She’ll probably receive a job offer because she has ten years of experience. In a job market like the current one, anything over eight years of experience gives a candidate a great advantage.

Can you notice how much more time it takes to break down this argument as opposed to the bare-bones argument we first presented? One of your primary goals on most LSAT argument-based questions is to rephrase an argument in its “conclusion, because support” form in order to keep it simple. It’s rare that background information holds information critical to your ability to complete the task.

When we read logical reasoning arguments critically, we read with a purpose, and most of the time, our purpose will be to break the argument into its components so that we can answer the question!

###How do we identify the main conclusion?

You can see from our argument above—the one with the extra background information—that the conclusion won’t always be immediately obvious. While there isn’t one way that’s guaranteed to identify the conclusion (since writing and rhetoric is so variable), we can give you a few tools.

####Signal words for conclusions

While there is no guarantee that any one word or phrase is introducing the main conclusion of an argument—remember that many arguments have sub-conclusions!—the following keywords are often found at the beginning of a conclusion sentence or a conclusion clause.

• Thus
• Therefore
• Hence
• So
• Conclude
• It follows that
• As a result
• Clearly
• Obviously
• Nevertheless
• Nonetheless

These words, when they are present in an argument, can often give you a good place to start when you want to locate the main conclusion quickly.

WARNING! Remember that conclusions don’t have to have any kind of leading keyword at all! Consider the following keyword-less conclusions:

• The cat will run away if you open the door. That's because the cat doesn't like being inside.
• 90% of adults in the area returned a survey and indicated that they think crime is on the rise. We need to act quickly to combat this increase in crime.

Therefore, always use context in order to identify the main conclusion.

###How do we identify the relevant evidence?

Keep asking WHY?

It’s really easy to get “lost” in the words when we analyze an LSAT argument, so it can be helpful to keep one question in mind when identifying the evidence, or support: “Why?” In other words, “Why does the arguer believe [that conclusion]?”

In the practice section of the system, you’ll often see us break down arguments like this:

Conclusion

• [Insert conclusion here]

because

Support

• [Insert the “why” reasoning here].

Other times, it may be easier to understand the argument by starting with the support:

Support

• [Insert premises here]. Therefore,

Conclusion

• [Insert conclusion here].

Sometimes a claim is partly direct evidence and partly background info, which makes it more difficult to “weed out” the background info. Keep asking “Why?/Because” as you approach arguments in the Logical Reasoning section, and you’ll start to see patterns emerge, and gain the confidence you need to approach more complex claims. The more you do it, the better you’ll get!

####Signal words for evidence

Keywords indicating evidence tend to be more reliable than the keywords that can indicate conclusion. The following keywords—though far from constituting a complete list—often indicate some type of evidence, if not the main support for the conclusion:

• Because
• Since
• After all
• On the grounds that
• Given that
• For
• As shown by

###Looking ahead

As you work through Khan Academy’s LSAT Prep, practice breaking down arguments into their components. Here are the question types in which you’ll almost always find a conclusion and evidence (except in the very rarest of cases):

• Assumption (sufficient and necessary)
• Flaw
• Strengthen
• Weaken
• Match the flaw
• Match the structure
• Identify the role
• Identify the technique
• Identify the conclusion

###Related articles

Types of conclusions

Types of evidence

##Logical reasoning question types

Here's a loose inventory of the types of question stems you’ll see throughout the Logical Reasoning section. This list is in no way comprehensive, since there are many ways to word the same task, but the examples found here are conceptually representative of the question type.

The more adept you become at identifying question types, the more easily you’ll be able to choose an appropriate strategy—and that means greater accuracy and speed on Test Day.

###Identify the conclusion

Examples:

• Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn in the argument?
• The conclusion drawn in Annie’s argument is that

Note: In our system, you will find some questions that ask you to Identify or Infer the Dispute mixed up with questions that ask you to Identify the Conclusion.

Learn more:

• Identify the conclusion | Quick guide
• Identify the conclusion | Video lesson
• Identify the conclusion | Learn more
• Identify the conclusion | Worked example

###Identify an entailment (also known as implication)

Examples:

• Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
• If the essayist’s statements are true, then which one of the following must also be true?
• Which one of the following statements follows logically from the information above?
• If the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?

[[☃ explanation 2]]

Learn more:

• Identify an entailment | Quick guide
• Identify an entailment | Video lesson
• Identify an entailment | Learn more
• Identify an entailment | Worked example

###Infer what is most strongly supported

• Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

Note: These question stems always feature a blank space like this _______ at the end of the passage.

• Laura's statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following hypotheses?
• Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
• Which one of the following can most reasonably be concluded on the basis of the information above?
• Of the following claims, which one can most justifiably be rejected on the basis of the statements above?

Learn more:

• Strongly supported inferences | Quick guide
• Strongly supported inferences | Video lesson
• Strongly supported inferences | Learn more
• Strongly supported inferences | Worked example

###Identify or infer an issue in dispute

Examples:

• X and Y disagree over whether
• X and Y disagree with each other about which one of the following?
• The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that X and Y disagree over whether
• On the basis of their statements, X and Y are committed to disagreeing over the truth of which one of the following statements?

Top tip: Sometimes the test will ask you to infer what the speakers agree on, so it’s important to read the question carefully!

Learn more:

• Disputes | Quick guide
• Disputes | Video lesson
• Disputes | Learn more
• Disputes | Worked example

###Identify the technique

Examples:

• The educator’s argument proceeds by
• Paul responds to Sara’s argument using which one of the following argumentative techniques?
• Which one of the following is a technique of reasoning used in the argument?
• X responds to Y's argument by doing which one of the following?

Learn more:

• Identify the technique | Quick guide
• Identify the technique | Video lesson
• Identify the technique | Learn more
• Identify the technique | Worked example

###Identify the role

Examples:

• The claim that … plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
• The claim that … is used in the argument to
• Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that …?

Learn more:

• Identify the role | Quick guide
• Identify the role | Video lesson
• Identify the role | Learn more
• Identify the role | Worked example

###Identify the principle

Examples:

• Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument above?
• The journalist’s reasoning most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?
• The situation described above conforms most closely to which one of the following generalizations?
• The principle stated above, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

Learn more:

• Identify the principle | Quick guide
• Identify the principle | Video lesson
• Identify the principle | Learn more
• Identify the principle | Worked example

###Match the structure

Examples:

• Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
• The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments?
• Which one of the following arguments is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the argument above?

Learn more:

• Match the structure | Quick guide
• Match the structure | Video lesson
• Match the structure | Learn more
• Match the structure | Worked example

###Match principles

Example:

• Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated above?
• The principle underlying the argument above is most similar to the principle underlying which one of the following arguments?

Learn more:

• Match principles | Quick guide
• Match principles | Video lesson
• Match principles | Learn more
• Match principles | Worked example

###Identify a flaw

Examples:

• The reasoning in the magazine article’s argument is flawed in that the argument
• Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument’s reasoning?
• The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?
• The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
• The argument’s reasoning is questionable in that the argument
• The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument overlooks the possibility that
• Trey's remarks suggest that he is misinterpreting which one of the following words used by Ginevra?

[[☃ explanation 1]]

Learn more:

• Identify a flaw | Quick guide
• Identify a flaw | Video lesson
• Identify a flaw | Learn more
• Identify a flaw | Worked example

###Match flaws

Examples:

• The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
• Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its flawed reasoning to the argument above?
• Which one of the following arguments contains flawed reasoning that is most parallel to that in the argument above?
• The flawed nature of the argument above can most effectively be demonstrated by noting that, by parallel reasoning, we could conclude that

Learn more:

• Match flaws | Quick guide
• Match flaws | Video lesson
• Match flaws | Learn more
• Match flaws | Worked example

###Necessary Assumptions

Examples:

• Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
• The argument requires assuming which one of the following?
• The argument requires the assumption that
• The argument relies on assuming which one of the following?
• Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Learn more:

• Necessary assumptions | Quick guide
• Necessary assumptions | Video lesson
• Necessary assumptions | Learn more
• Necessary assumptions | Worked example

###Sufficient Assumptions

Examples:

• The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
• The conclusion of the argument is strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?
• The conclusion of X's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
• Which one of the following is an assumption that, if true, would do most to justify X's actions?

Learn more:

• Sufficient assumptions | Quick guide
• Sufficient assumptions | Video lesson
• Sufficient assumptions | Learn more
• Sufficient assumptions | Worked example

###Strengthen

Examples:

• Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
• Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the support for the scientist's hypothesis?
• Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the conclusion of the argument?
• Each of the following, if true, supports the claim above EXCEPT

Learn more:

• Strengthen | Quick guide
• Strengthen | Video lesson
• Strengthen | Learn more
• Strengthen | Worked example

###Weaken

Examples:

• Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
• Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the efficacy of the traditional treatment described above?
• Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest logical counter that the linguist can make to the philosopher?
• Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the claim made above?

Learn more:

• Weaken | Quick guide
• Weaken | Video lesson
• Weaken | Learn more
• Weaken | Worked example

###Identify what is most/least helpful to know

Examples:

• Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
• The answer to which one of the following questions would most help in evaluating the argument above?
• The answer to which one of the following questions would LEAST help in evaluating the argument?

Learn more:

• Helpful to know | Quick guide
• Helpful to know | Video lesson
• Helpful to know | Learn more
• Helpful to know | Worked example

###Explain

Examples:

• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the apparently paradoxical result?
• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the failure of the strategy?
• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the preference described above?
• Each of the following, if true, contributes to an explanation of the difference in caloric intake EXCEPT:

Explanation: Top tip
Sometimes students see the words “helps to” in an explain question and they mistake it for a strengthen question. Notice, however, that in explain question types, you’re not helping an argument (which is what a strengthen question asks you to do), but that you’re helping to explain how a situation could have occurred.

Learn more:

• Explain | Quick guide
• Explain | Video lesson
• Explain | Learn more
• Explain | Worked example

###Resolve a conflict

Examples:

• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict described above?
• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information above?
• Which one of the following, if true, does most to justify the doctors’ apparently paradoxical belief?

Learn more:

• Resolve a conflict | Quick guide
• Resolve a conflict | Video lesson
• Resolve a conflict | Learn more
• Resolve a conflict | Worked example

##Types of conclusions

You might find it helpful to categorize the kind of conclusion you're dealing with as you approach passages that contain arguments. Your success in analyzing arguments—passages with a conclusion and supporting evidence—starts with knowing how to identify their parts.

One reason it can be useful to distinguish conclusion types is that they carry different implications, and this can inform how you answer the question—here are two examples:

• When an arguer's conclusion is a recommendation for something, he or she often will provide one good reason to do that thing. One thing to be aware of here is the assumption that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
• When an arguer's conclusion is a prediction, the arguer may be assuming that the current evidence will remain unchanged in the future.

There are many types of conclusions in the arguments on the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT, but here are some of the most common ones to look out for on Test Day:

###Comparisons

This type of conclusion compares two elements with each other or compares one element with itself.

Examples

• It’s clear that this year’s candidate is stronger than last year’s candidate.
• It’s clear that this year’s candidate understands the public’s wishes better than she did a year ago.

Top tip: Common indicators Comparative words (better than, healthier than, more useful than) can help you identify a conclusion as a comparison.

###Causation

When one thing (such as an event, action, phenomenon) directly affects another, it's a causal relationship.

Examples

• Last night, I took cough medicine and today I feel much better. So that cough medicine is really effective. (Cause: cough medicine; effect: feeling better)
• Jonathan gets good grades without trying very hard, and his teachers have said multiple times how much they like him. The only possible way that Jonathan maintains his good grades is because of how much his teachers like him. (Cause: teachers liking Jonathan; effect: good grades)

Top tip: Not so fast! If someone believes something to be true because of certain facts being true, that isn't necessarily a causal relationship. Example: My friend always calls me on Wednesdays. Therefore, she's definitely going to call me tomorrow. There is no direct cause and effect here because there isn't something that is directly affecting something else.

###Assessments

When an arguer assigns a certain subjective attribute to something, you might call it an assessment.

Examples

• The flower is beautiful.
• This policy is very helpful.
• The outcome will be important.

Note: Scientific facts aren't assessments “The sun is made up of several gases” is a fact; “The sun is a joyful sight” is an assessment.

###Recommendations

This type of conclusion asserts the best method or course of action (or, in its negative form, recommends against a certain method or course of action).

Examples

• In treating this disease, then, physicians should favor Treatment X.
• It’s likely that extending the warranty is the only way to gain new customers.

Top tip: look out for common indicators Often, a keyword such as “should” or “ought to” will signal a recommendation to you, but sometimes the recommendation is implied (such as in the example about the warranty).

###Predictions

A prediction asserts the arguer’s opinion about something that will take place in the near or distant future.

Examples

• Obviously, the tennis match will be rescheduled.
• Our homeless population may not be reduced by next year.

Top tip for Identify the conclusion questions If the arguer believes something will or will not happen at some point in the future, the chances are good that it’s the argument’s main conclusion.

###Simple Beliefs

This name may be somewhat misleading, since you could make the case that all conclusions are a sort of simple belief; however, some students find it useful to characterize any conclusion that isn’t one of the above types as a simple belief. These are conclusions that are plain claims that the arguer believes to be true and that aren't comparisons, assessments, recommendations, or predictions.

Examples

• It’s clear that the student cheated on the test.
• The thief is probably still in the house somewhere.

[[☃ explanation 2]]

##Degrees of conclusion

If you're short on time, your awareness of not only a conclusion's type but also its degree can help you eliminate choices quickly in "Matching Arguments" and "Matching Flaws" questions because the conclusions in the passages are usually of the same type and similar degree as the conclusions in the answer.

Let's look at two loose categories of degree:

• Definite
• Indefinite

###Definite conclusions

Definite conclusions may also be referred to as categorical conclusions. They are often signaled by keywords such as:

• every
• all
• none
• never
• will

Any signal word that indicates that something is true 100% or 0% of the time can be classified as definite.

Top tip: In a match the structure or match the flaws question, the degree of the conclusion of the argument in the correct option will often match the degree of the conclusion of the argument in the passage.

Top tip: In flaw questions, definite conclusions can indicate that the arguer is overlooking other possibilities in drawing that conclusion.

###Indefinite conclusions

You may see indefinite conclusions referred to as qualified conclusions. They’re often signaled by keywords:

• Likelihood: likely, unlikely, possible, could, might
• Quantity: some, most, more
• Frequency: rarely, seldom, often, sometimes, usually
• Proximity: almost, nearly

Any signal word that indicates that something isn’t necessarily true 100% or 0% of the time can be classified as indefinite.

##Takeaways

It can only help if you practice recognizing the type and degree of conclusions, since you’ll be encountering so many of them on Test Day. Take the time to build this skill, and your ability to analyze arguments will improve.

##Types of Evidence

It can be useful to separate and identify different types of evidence used in an argument to support a conclusion.

• This can help you avoid getting “lost” in the words; if you’re reading actively and recognizing what type of evidence you’re looking at, then you’re more likely to stay focused.
• Different types of evidence are often associated with specific types of assumptions or flaws, so if a question presents a classic evidence structure, you may be able to find the answer more quickly.

There are many ways to support a conclusion; we’ll walk through some of the most common ones that you may see on Test Day.

###Common Evidence Types

Let’s consider the following claim:

Conclusion: Paola is the best athlete in the state.

What types of evidence might support this claim?

####Examples as evidence

An example provides evidence that is meant to support the conclusion. What’s an example of Paola being a superior athlete?

• [Paola is the best athlete in the state.] After all, Paola has won medals in 8 different Olympic sports.
• Paola beat last year's decathlon state champion on Saturday, so [she is the best athlete in the state].

####What others say

Drawing on what others say (sometimes called an “appeal”) as evidence is a fairly common way for someone to attempt to prove a point.

• [Paola is the best athlete in the state.] We know this because the most highly-acclaimed sports magazine has named her as such.
• Because the population voted Paola the Best Athlete in the state in a landslide, [it would be absurd to claim that anyone else is the best athlete in the state].

Top tip for flaws and assumptions: Ask “Is it enough?” When you see an appeal being made, take the time to think about whether the object of the appeal is relevant and useful. For example, if an arguer makes a scientific claim but appeals only to one scientific expert, there’s a lot of room to attack that argument (if it’s necessary to).

####Using the past

When an arguer uses the past to justify a conclusion, it’s often with the assumption that things haven’t changed since that past.

• [Paola is the best athlete in the state.] She must be, since she won the state championships last year, two years ago, three years ago, and four years ago.

Top tip: When you see an arguer use the past to justify a prediction (or the present, as in our example), ask yourself, “Is it possible that things have changed, and that that past evidence is no longer relevant?”

####Analogies

Sometimes an arguer will use an analogy as evidence, by describing a similar but unrelated situation as support.

• [Paola is the best athlete in the state], because she won the most athletic awards. Look at Jude, who's currently the Best Chef in the State because he won the most cooking awards.

Top tip for flaws and assumptions: Ask “are they really the same?” When the arguer makes an analogy, always check to ensure that the two situations being compared are actually logically comparable. If they aren’t and you’re solving a flaw question, then you already have your answer as to the flaw! And if you’re tackling a necessary assumption question based on an argument employing an analogy, then your necessary assumption might be that the two situations are similar enough to be compared.

####Generalizing from a Sample

Sometimes an arguer will use a sample to make a generalization:

• [Paola is the best athlete in the state], because she won every local tournament in every spring sport.

Top tip: Pay attention to samples on the LSAT. In the example above, you can see a shift from the sample to the conclusion. The evidence addresses every local tournament in every spring sport, and then the arguer concludes that Paola must be the best athlete in the state.

When you see a sample, a good first step is to take a quick peek to confirm whether the sample is appropriate; in other words, ask yourself, “Is the group of things/people discussed in the evidence representative of the group of things/people discussed in the conclusion?”

###Common Rebuttal Structures

You’ll also see rebuttals on the LSAT, with commonly-used evidence types to support those rebuttals.

####Counterexamples

Counterexamples are examples used to refute (or “counter”) someone else’s opinion. Usually, it'll be when one arguer makes a generalization, and then another arguer presents a specific example that refutes that claim. Consider the following claim:

Robert: Everyone's favorite food is pizza.

A counterexample might look like this:

Brianna: That's not true. My favorite food is paella.

In other words, in making a counterexample, the arguer produces a specific example that hurts the other arguer’s or arguers’ reasoning.

####Alternate Possibilities

A speaker may rebut another speaker by pointing out a different cause, effect, reason, etc. than the one being cited. To give just one example, if the first speaker believes that X will lead to Y, you may see the second speaker question why X couldn’t lead to Z instead.

###Other types of argument structures

####Conditional

These are arguments that draw conclusions based on conditional relationships. Conditional relationships are true/false relationships between different ideas: if one is true, then another has to be true as well. These are absolute: they hold always and in all cases. They can be combined to imply other general relationships, or they can be applied to individual cases to draw specific conclusions.

Top tip: When in doubt, draw! Many students find it helpful to diagram the evidence when there’s a substantial number of conditional relationships present. For example,

The Penguins won’t win unless the Flyers make a big mistake, and the only way that the Flyers will make a big mistake is if the coach is tired that day. The coach is never tired on Fridays, though.

could be diagrammed as:

• Penguins win $\rightarrow$ Flyers make big mistake
• Flyers make big mistake $\rightarrow$ coach tired
• Friday $\rightarrow$ coach is not tired

Visit the Logic Toolbox in the Lessons area for help with conditional logic!

####Causation based on correlation

These arguments reach a conclusion that A causes B. The support often involves statements about correlations: observations of two things happening at the same time. Look for language that shows that one thing directly affects another:

The flood last week was due to climate change.

This kind of culture fosters resentment.

The incorrect prescription was responsible for the patient's death.

Top tip: A very common way to weaken a causal argument is to identify an alternate cause for the effect that is observed or provided.

For example:

I put a new mattress cover on my bed last night, and I sneezed all night. So my new mattress cover must be making me sneeze.

This is a causal argument that supposes that the new mattress cover (and not anything else) is making the speaker sneeze. A classic way to weaken this argument is to show that something else (for example, a virus or increased pollen in the air) is causing the sneezing.

##Common Flaws

On the LSAT (as well as in real life), you’ll encounter some types of flawed arguments more often than others. This article features some of the flaws that you’re most likely to see on Test Day. This article is in no way comprehensive, but rather a good start in introducing some typical flaws.

The faster you can recognize these common flaws, the more time you'll be able to save if you encounter them on Test Day

[[☃ explanation 1]]

###Where am I most likely to use my knowledge of common flaws?

You'll often encounter classic flaws in the arguments and choices in these Logical Reasoning question types:

• Identify a flaw
• Match flaws

And, knowledge about these flaws can sometimes help you identify potential weak points in these question types:

• [[☃ definition 1]]
• [[☃ definition 2]]
• [[☃ definition 3]]

Top tip: Flaws don't fit into one neat, predetermined box. There are many ways to name the same flaw. It simply depends on how you look at the situation. For example:

Lachelle is late for dinner, so she must be stuck in traffic.

It's equally accurate to state the flaw as:

• The arguer assumes without warrant that traffic is the only reason Lachelle would be late for dinner

or

• The arguer overlooks the possibility that traffic is not the only reason Lachelle would be late for dinner.

Don't worry, though! As long as you practice and recognize the conceptual flaw in an argument, you'll soon get better at recognizing the different ways that flaws can be described in the choices.

Let's take a look at some classic flaw varieties so that you can recognize and approach them with more confidence on Test Day.

####Sampling

Sampling flaws occur when an argument extends limited information and tries to apply it more widely than is reasonable or justifiable.

To detect a potential sampling flaw, look for:

• Polls, surveys, or studies
• Data or statistics that come from a limited source (such as "one meteorologist")
• A shift from specific evidence to a general conclusion (for example, the evidence is about three doctors and the conclusion is about all doctors)
• A shift from evidence to conclusion during which the arguer assumes—but doesn't demonstrate—that one is acceptably representative of the other

To confirm that a sample is representative, we're primarily concerned about making sure the sample addresses:

• [[☃ definition 1]]
• [[☃ definition 2]]
• [[☃ definition 3]]

As you work through the next exercise on your own, look for how the sampling flaw appears and how you can detect it on your own.

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

####Ad hominem

You can most easily observe an ad hominem flaw when:

• An arguer criticizes someone's actions as a reason to not heed their argument
• An arguer criticizes someone's character as a reason to not heed their argument
• An arguer criticizes someone's motives as a reason to not heed their argument

It's important to remember that the identity or motives of an arguer don't affect the validity of that person's argument. Corrupt, unintelligent, biased people can make valid arguments. Moreover, if someone’s a hypocrite (they act in a different way than what they advise), it doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

Example: My doctor tells me it's bad for your lungs to smoke cigarettes, but I know he's lying. I saw him furtively smoking a cigarette the other day.

Our next example question should challenge you a bit, since it'll show you several types of ad hominem flaws in the choices. Be precise! Not all ad hominem flaws are created equal.

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

####Faulty analogy

A faulty analogy is a type of Scope Shift, in that the arguer compares two things or two situations, but the two things or situations being compared aren't sufficiently alike.

If you detect an analogy in an Assumption or Strengthen/Weaken question, you may need to demonstrate that the two things or situations in the analogy are (or aren't, as in the case of Weaken questions) sufficiently alike.

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Summary of common flaws

This table includes the flaw types we discussed above, as well as a few others that are less common. Feel free to bookmark this article in your browser so that you can review it from time to time! This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather a great starting point for you to understand a good portion of LSAT flaws.

Top tip: Make your own! Try to create your own examples to illustrate each flaw. It's a great exercise to demonstrate your understanding!

###Your turn

Using what you've learned in this article, try a mixed group of practice questions. Break the arguments into conclusion and evidence, and look for clues that may signal one of the classic flaws we covered.

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

##A quick guide to "Identify the conclusion" questions

Some LSAT questions ask you to Identify the Conclusion of a line of reasoning. Here’s a helpful definition that can clear things up:

Conclusion: the one statement that is supported by the other statements, and that itself doesn’t support any other statements.

Common wrong choice types:

• Sub-Conclusion: Also known as a subsidiary or intermediate conclusion, a sub-conclusion is a claim that looks like a conclusion (because it is supported by one or more other statements), but that isn’t the main conclusion—it’s a conclusion that also supports a different claim!

###Checklist

✓ Find the point: Determine which statement seems like the main prediction, value judgment, interpretation, or theory. What is the one thing the arguer is trying to convince us of?

✓ Look for support indicator words: Some words indicate that the statements they introduce are part of a support statement, and are not the conclusion. Support indicators like because, since and for can introduce statements that explain why the arguer believes a claim.

✓ Double-check the claim: If the statement you chose seems to retroactively, or continue on to, support a different claim, then you haven’t chosen the main conclusion. In fact, it’s now more likely that the different claim being supported is the main conclusion.

✓ Look for conclusion indicator words: Some words are good indicators that the statements they introduce are part of a conclusion. The most common examples are thus and therefore, but however, yet, although and but can indicate conclusions, too.

✓ Clarify pronouns: If the main conclusion is ambiguous—for example, “but this is a mistake”—it’s a good idea to rephrase the main conclusion using other parts of the passage. What is “this”, and what does it mean that it’s a “mistake”?

✓ Match it! Find the choice that accurately paraphrases the main conclusion that you identified.

##How do we identify the main conclusion of an argument?

Some questions present you with an argument and ask you to identify its main conclusion. How do you go about finding it?

Let's first establish a few definitions:

###The basics

Support: A claim that acts as evidence for another claim.
Conclusion: A claim that is backed by support.
Background: A statement that provides contextual information but doesn’t play a role in the argument.

###Some specifics

There are actually two different kinds of conclusions:

Main conclusion:

• The claim that is backed by the rest of the argument as a whole
• Backed by support, but does not itself support any other claim
• The claim that the argument as a whole is trying to establish

Sub-conclusion:

• Also called intermediate or subsidiary conclusions
• Claims that function as both conclusion and support
• A conclusion that supports a further conclusion (or conclusions)
• Backed by support, and simultaneously support a different claim

Every argument has one and only one main conclusion. Not all arguments have sub-conclusions, but many do. So it’s not enough on this question type to know that a statement expresses a conclusion. We have to go one step further and figure out if it’s the main conclusion or just a sub-conclusion.

The Task: Differentiate the main conclusion from support, background information, and sub-conclusions.

###Example

Some paleontologists have suggested that Apatosaurus, a huge dinosaur, was able to gallop. This, however, is unlikely, because galloping would probably have broken Apatosaurus’s legs. Experiments with modern bones show how much strain they can withstand before breaking. By taking into account the diameter and density of Apatosaurus leg bones, it is possible to calculate that those bones could not have withstood the strains of galloping.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn by the argument as a whole?

(A) Galloping would probably have broken the legs of Apatosaurus.

(B) It is possible to calculate that Apatosaurus leg bones could not have withstood the strain of galloping.

(C) The claim of paleontologists that Apatosaurus was able to gallop is likely to be incorrect.

(D) If galloping would have broken the legs of Apatosaurus, then Apatosaurus was probably unable to gallop.

(E) Modern bones are quite similar in structure and physical properties to the bones of Apatosaurus.

####How should we tackle this question?

✓ Paraphrase the overall idea or "point" of the stimulus in your own words.

The main conclusion is the statement that the arguer is trying to prove, and everything else is in its service. It's usually a broad claim. It’s often a prediction, value judgment, recommendation, interpretation, or theory, but it can also be a simple statement of something the arguer believes to be true.

In this case, what’s the overall idea or takeaway of the argument? What is the main thing it’s trying to convince us to believe? Something like:

Some paleontologists think the Apatosaurus could gallop, but they’re wrong.

This is a common structure: the arguer introduces a theory, claims that the theory is wrong, and then provides evidence supporting that claim. The conclusion can be rephrased as simply:

The galloping Apatosaurus theory is wrong.

or even more simply,

Apatosaurus couldn’t gallop.

We have a very strong prediction, and on Test Day, we would be able to go directly to the choices at this point to find the match for our prediction. But first, let's look at a few more approaches that you could take for this question type.

✓ Use conclusion and support indicator words to help identify the role of each claim in the overall argument.

To understand how the statements in an argument relate to each other, and to help identify the role of any given statement, it’s
usually useful to look for indicator words, which help reveal an argument’s structure.

Statements that include conclusion-indicator words are likely conclusions (though it’s still up to you to figure out if a given statement is the main conclusion). Statements that begin with support-indicator words such as “since” and “because” are acting as evidence for other claims, so they can’t be the main conclusion–you can eliminate those statements if they appear in choices.

For more help on conclusion and support indicators, you can consult the article Intro to Logical Reasoning arguments

But indicator words are not always present, so we don’t want to rely on them exclusively. Even without indicator words, it’s possible to infer whether each claim is the main conclusion, a sub-conclusion, support, or background.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

###Summary

✓ Paraphrase the overall idea or "point" of the stimulus in your own words.
✓ Use conclusion and support indicator words to help identify the role of each claim in the overall argument.

###Common incorrect choices

Wrong element: These incorrect choices include statements from the stimulus that act as support, background, and sub-conclusions. Sub-conclusions can be particularly hard to differentiate from the main conclusion because they're often signaled by the same keywords (thus, therefore, hence, etc.).

Valid inferences: Other incorrect choices may state something that can be inferred from statements in the argument but that isn't the argument’s main conclusion.

Not quite/too strong: Finally, some of the incorrect choices may be only slightly inaccurate misstatements of the main conclusion. For example, if the actual conclusion is that something is likely to be true, an incorrect choice may say that it is definitely true. This choice is incorrect because it's stronger than the actual conclusion.

###Your turn!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Some final thoughts about identifying conclusions

• Don't use conclusion indicator words as an automatic shortcut! It's very possible to see the word "thus" towards the end of a passage and have that claim not be the main conclusion.
• If you're having trouble, use process of elimination—start with what you know to be evidence, and eliminate the choices with those claims.
• To become familiar with specific types of conclusions so that you can gain speed in your argument analysis, check out our article about Types of conclusions.

##Identify the conclusion examples and practice

The Main Conclusion question type is a particularly important one to master, because identifying the main conclusion is an essential step in solving many other types of questions. We’re now ready for some practice. In the following arguments, can you identify the Main Conclusions?

Example 1

A new process enables ordinary table salt to be fortified with iron. This advance could help reduce the high incidence of anemia in the world's population due to a deficiency of iron in the diet. Salt is used as a preservative for food and a flavor enhancer all over the globe, and people consume salt in quantities that would provide iron in significant amounts.

A paraphrase of the argument’s overall takeaway might be something like, “Iron fortified salt could reduce anemia.” There are no indicator words to help us break down the stimulus but we can still figure out the role of each claim:

1) A new process enables ordinary table salt to be fortified with iron.
2) This advance could help reduce the high incidence of anemia in the world's population due to a deficiency of iron in the diet.
3) Salt is used as a preservative for food and a flavor enhancer all over the globe, and
4) People consume salt in quantities that would provide iron in significant amounts.

The only statement that is supported by evidence is Claim 2: the position that iron-fortified salt could reduce the level anemia caused by iron deficiency. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are are asserted without any support. Claim 1 provides background, and Claims 3 and 4 support the conclusion that fortified salt could have a significant health impact by establishing that salt is widely consumed throughout the world.

• Therefore, the main conclusion is: “[Fortifying table salt with iron] could help reduce the high incidence of anemia in the world's population due to a deficiency of iron in the diet.”

Example 2

Does the position of a car driver's seat have a significant impact on driving safety? It probably does. Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly. A driver who is uncomfortable eventually becomes fatigued, which makes it difficult to concentrate on the road. Likewise, the better the visibility from the driver's seat, the more aware the driver can be of road conditions and other vehicles.

A paraphrase of the takeaway? Something like:

The position of a driver’s seat can affect safety.

This position is staked out early in the argument, and then backed by support.

1) Does the position of a car driver's seat have a significant impact on driving safety?
2) It probably does.
3) Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly.
4) A driver who is uncomfortable eventually becomes fatigued, and
5) Fatigue makes it difficult to concentrate on the road.
6) The better the visibility from the driver's seat, the more aware the driver can be of road conditions and other vehicles.

The argument identifies two ways that seat position can affect safety: fatigue and visibility. The first sentence introduces the question the argument is concerned with answering, and the next states the argument’s answer to that question: seat position does impact safety. The following sentences explain and justify that claim: they act as support. Therefore, the main conclusion is that the position of the driver’s seat probably has a significant impact on driving safety.

Example 3

Economist: Some critics of the media have contended that negative news reports on the state of the economy can actually harm the economy because such reports damage people's confidence in it, and this lack of confidence in turn adversely affects people's willingness to spend money. But studies show that spending trends correlate very closely with people's confidence in their own immediate economic situations. Thus these media critics are mistaken.

This is another argument with two sides: there’s the critics’ thesis that news of a bad economy can make the economy worse, and there’s the economist’s position that these critics are mistaken.

Prediction: The main point might be paraphrased as: “the critics are wrong.”

1) Some critics of the media have contended that negative news reports on the state of the economy can actually harm the economy because such reports damage people's confidence in it, and
2) This lack of confidence in turn adversely affects people's willingness to spend money.
3) But studies show that spending trends correlate very closely with people's confidence in their own immediate economic situations.
4) Thus these media critics are mistaken.

The conclusion-indicator “thus” helps identify the last sentence as the argument’s main conclusion. It’s also the only statement that’s supported by evidence but not acting as support for some other claim. Claims 1 and 2 express an opposing view. Claim 3 gives some reason to doubt this view, and Claim 4 concludes, on the basis of this objection, that the critics are mistaken.

###Your turn!

While conclusions are still fresh in your head, why not head over to the practice area and give a few Identify the Conclusion questions a try?

##A quick guide to questions that ask you to identify something that follows logically from a set of premises

Passages for these questions generally read like a series of statements. You might think of them as “support in search of a conclusion.”

The task: Can you find a guaranteed entailment —also sometimes called a deduction or implication—that follows logically from a combination of the provided facts?

In other words: If each statement in the passage is truth that’s set in stone, can you identify the only choice that must also be true?

Sometimes you’ll be able to predict what must be true, and other times you’ll need to test each choice.

###Ways that you can predict, when applicable

✓ Look for relationships: Are there ways in which statements relate to each other? For example, does X connect with Y, which connects with Z? You can predict that X connects with Z.

✓ Diagram any conditional statements: Are there conditional statements that act like rules and make sense to diagram?

✓ Make a sketch: Is the situation complex enough to warrant a quick sketch of the action?

✓ Note strong language Are there strong statements to pay attention to, such as “all,” “must,” “any,” “ever,” “never” and “everyone”?

✓ Note weak language: Are there weaker, qualified statements, including words such as “some,” “many,” and “may,” “sometimes” “usually” and “often”? If the passage is entirely qualified, then it’s highly unlikely that a strong statement can follow from that passage.

✓ Match it! If you can make a prediction from these steps, then look for a choice that matches that prediction.

###If you can’t make a prediction

✓ Try the Truth Test: Test each choice by asking yourself if that statement has to be true, based on the facts in the passage. You could also eliminate choices by asking whether the statement could acceptably be false. Be careful to not use this Truth Test on strongly supported questions!

✓ Don’t use your imagination! Resist the urge to “fill in the blanks yourself”, which usually entails adding assumptions to try to make a choice true.

✓ Read with precision! “Most” is not the same thing as “some”; “at least two” is not the same thing as “at most two”; “X can be dangerous” is not the same thing as “X shouldn’t be done.”

###Common wrong choice types

• Too strong/extreme: Some wrong choices are statements that go beyond the truth of the passage by being too extreme.
• Probably/Might be true: Some wrong choices are statements that could very well be true but we can’t be 100% certain.

Top Tip: Don’t compare the choices with each other—rather, compare the choices against the statements in the passage. That will help you to avoid adding your own assumptions or picking the choice that “sounds best.”

##Identify an entailment that follows logically from given statements

You’re given a set of statements. Your task? Determine what else must be true, based on those statements.

###How do I recognize entailment questions?

Look for questions that ask you what must be true, or for what logically follows; sometimes the question asks you instead for what the conclusion would have to be if the statements in the stimulus are true:

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above?

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

Let’s work through an example together!

###Example

If there are any inspired musical performances in the concert, the audience will be treated to a good show. But there will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, and to be a sophisticated listener one must understand one's musical roots.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

(A) If there are no sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there will be no inspired musical performances in the concert.

(B) No people who understand their musical roots will be in the audience if the audience will not be treated to a good show.

(C) If there will be people in the audience who understand their musical roots, then at least one musical performance in the concert will be inspired.

(D) The audience will be treated to a good show unless there are people in the audience who do not understand their musical roots.

(E) If there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, then there will be inspired musical performances in the concert.

###How might we approach this question?

✓ Break the passage down into individual claims.

A good way to start is to list (usually mentally, or sometimes with some quick notes if the claims are hard to keep track of) all of the claims that the arguer makes. Think of these as building blocks that we can then reassemble to support a conclusion.

1. If there are any inspired musical performances in the concert, the audience will be treated to a good show, but

2. There will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience, and

3. To be a sophisticated listener one must understand one's musical roots.

✓ Look for ways that the passage’s statements interact and relate.

It’s likely that the most obvious way this will happen is when two statements involve the same terms. Those two statements might link up to support a conclusion, or make a larger relationship, for example:

Some dogs are cuddly.
All cuddly things are cute.

Since the two statements contain the term cuddly, we can use cuddly as the connector term, combining the statements to deduce that

Some dogs are cute.

In our example, we see a couple repeating terms:

good show
sophisticated listener

Through diagramming, we can investigate any potentially useful connections between good show statements and sophisticated listener statements.

✓ Identify conditional statements and consider diagramming them.

Support often includes one or more conditional statements. These tend to be strong claims, and they are very useful for generating conclusions. It’s a good idea to notice conditionals wherever you come across them. If there are multiple conditions, and especially if they include common terms, it may be a good idea to diagram them.

1) If there are any inspired musical performances in the concert, the audience will be treated to a good show.

• inspired mus. perf. in concert $\rightarrow$ good show

2) There will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience

• good show $\rightarrow$ soph. listen.

[[☃ explanation 2]]

3) To be a sophisticated listener one must understand one's musical roots

• soph. listen. $\rightarrow$ understand roots

As you may be able to see, we can connect these statements! Notice how good show is the result of one statement and the trigger for another statement. The same is true of sophisticated listeners. That means that we can create one long chain of logic:

• inspired mus. perf. in concert $\rightarrow$ good show $\rightarrow$ soph. listen. $\rightarrow$ understand roots

and the logically equivalent statement is

• not understand roots $\rightarrow$ not soph. listen. $\rightarrow$ not good show $\rightarrow$ not inspired mus. perf. in concert

[[☃ explanation 1]]

The answer will reflect some relationship that we derived from the statements here.

Top tip: Follow the arrow! The logic can only progress in the direction of the arrow and not against it; in other words, you'll want to proceed from left to right, but never from right to left.

If you'd like more help with conditional logic, check out our favorite article on the subject: If X, then Y | Sufficiency and necessity.

###✓ To test a choice, ask, “If everything in the stimulus is true, does this claim have to be true? Or could it be false?"

You can often make a strong prediction in Entailment questions the way we did above. But in the cases where you can't or don't make a prediction, you can still test the choices one at a time.

Remember, we’re looking to fill in a missing deduction. What’s the definition of a deduction? It’s something that follows necessarily from evidence. In other words, an entailment (or deduction) cannot be false if the information in the stimulus is true.

You can test a choice, therefore, either by asking if it can be proven using the statements in the passage, or by considering whether the choice can ever be false (even if only once).

• If you can prove the choice using the statements in the passage, then you have the answer.
• If the answer to the question “Can this choice ever be false?” is yes, even if only in a few exceptional cases, then you should look for the answer elsewhere.

[[☃ explanation 1]]
[[☃ explanation 2]]
[[☃ explanation 3]]
[[☃ explanation 5]]
[[☃ explanation 6]]

###Summary

Keep the following tips in mind when you confront an Entailment question:

✓ Break the passage down into individual claims.
✓ Look for ways that the passage’s statements interact and relate.
✓ Identify conditional statements and consider diagramming them.
✓ To test a choice, ask, “If everything in the stimulus is true, does this claim have to be true? Or could it be false?"

###Common Incorrect Choices

• Could be false — Often, incorrect choices are claims that receive some support from the information but that nevertheless could be false even though all of the information is correct.
• Too much of a reach — Choices are often incorrect because they take things beyond what the evidence supports. They might be too strong or too specific, for example. If the passage states that something is unlikely to happen, a wrong choice might reflect that that something won't happen.
• Conditional mistakes — When the question involves conditional logic, there are often a couple of choices that look good but involve conditional fallacies. For example, they might confuse a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.

###Your turn!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

• Finding entailments is similar to taking disparate pieces of evidence to determine what must be true. There's no room for speculation in entailment questions.
• When you’re breaking down the stimulus, pay extra attention to conditional statements and logically strong premises (such as “all” and “must” statements). An answer can be strong, but never stronger than the passage that supports it.
• Try to make your own deductions before you consider the choices, then anticipate possible answers. However, keep in mind that there may be numerous deductions possible, so you won't always be able to clearly anticipate the answer.
• When looking over the choices, test each one by asking, “Does this have to be true? Or could it actually be false?”
• Be wary of (but don't automatically eliminate) choices with very strong or specific language; they might be overreaching, depending on what the passage states.
• Remember that the answer has to be guaranteed by the information in the stimulus, not just supported by it. That's the main difference between these question types and Strongly Supported questions.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to identify something that is "strongly supported"

On questions that ask you to find the choice that is most strongly supported by a stimulus, the answer does not have to be conclusively supported by the passage. It just has to be the choice that is most supported by the passage. This distinguishes strongly supported questions from Implication questions.

###Prediction isn’t always worth the effort

Generally, it’s not a good use of your time to try to predict the content of the answers to these questions. This is slightly different from Implication questions, whose stimuli can usually be characterized as “support in search of a conclusion.” You’ll generally need to test each choice. Before you do that, though, you’ll want to understand the passage.

###How to understand the passage

✓ Look for relationships: Are there ways in which statements relate to each other? If so, you can connect overlapping ideas. For example, does X connect with Y, which connects with Z? You can predict that X connects with Z.

✓ Diagram any conditional statements: Are there conditional statements that act like rules? If so, it may make sense to diagram them.

✓ Make a sketch: Is the situation complex enough to warrant a quick sketch of the action?

✓ Note strong language Are there strong statements to pay attention to, such as “all,” “must,” “any,” “ever,” “never” and “everyone”?

✓ Note weak language: Are there weaker, qualified statements, including words such as “some,” “many,” and “may,” “sometimes” “usually” and “often”? If the passage is entirely qualified, then it’s highly unlikely that a strong statement can follow from that passage.

###Test the choices

✓ Ask “Is it supported?” Test each choice by asking yourself if that statement can be reasonably concluded from the passage, based on the facts in the passage.

✓ Don’t use your imagination! Resist the urge to “fill in the blanks yourself”, which usually entails adding assumptions to try to “force” a choice to work.

✓ Read with precision! “Most” is not the same thing as “some”; “at least two” is not the same thing as “at most two”; “X can be dangerous” is not the same thing as “X shouldn’t be done.”

✓ Verify: To verify your choice, ensure that you can point to different parts of the passage that support the statement you’ve chosen. Speculation isn’t good enough to support an inference.

###Common wrong choice types

• Too strong/extreme: Some wrong choices are statements that go beyond the truth of the passage by being too extreme,
• Probably/Might be true: Some wrong choices are statements that could very well be true but we can’t be 100% certain from the information provided.

##How do we recognize what is "strongly supported?"

Some questions on the logical reasoning section of the LSAT ask what additional information is supported by a stimulus. These are similar to questions that ask you to identify the implication or entailment, but a major difference is that for strongly supported questions, the answer doesn't have to be conclusively supported by the evidence. It just has to be the choice that is most supported of the ones you're offered.

###How do we recognize these questions?

These questions are phrased in several ways. Here are some examples:

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

Which one of the following can most reasonably be concluded on the basis of the information above?

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

###Example

Birds and mammals can be infected with West Nile virus only through mosquito bites. Mosquitoes, in turn, become infected with the virus when they bite certain infected birds or mammals. The virus was originally detected in northern Africa and spread to North America in the 1990s. Humans sometimes catch West Nile virus, but the virus never becomes abundant enough in human blood to infect a mosquito.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) West Nile virus will never be a common disease among humans.

(B) West Nile virus is most common in those parts of North America with the highest density of mosquitoes.

(C) Some people who become infected with West Nile virus never show symptoms of illness.

(D) West Nile virus infects more people in northern Africa than it does in North America.

(E) West Nile virus was not carried to North America via an infected person.

###How might we approach this question?

✓ Break down the stimulus into individual claims.

A good way to start is to separate out each claim in the stimulus, either mentally, or through shorthand notes:

1. Birds and mammals can be infected with West Nile virus only through mosquito bites.

2. Mosquitoes, in turn, become infected with the virus when they bite certain infected birds or mammals.

3. The virus was originally detected in northern Africa and spread to North America in the 1990s.

4. Humans sometimes catch West Nile virus, but

5. The virus never becomes abundant enough in human blood to infect a mosquito.

✓ Look for ways that premises interact and relate, giving special attention common terms.

Connections come from one claim interacting with another. A sign that two claims might connect is that they have a common term or idea. The first, second, and fifth claims above all involve the infection: they define who can infect whom. Taken together, they give the following picture of West Nile virus:

• Bird and mammals (including humans) are infected by mosquitoes. Mosquitoes can be infected by some birds and mammals, but not by humans.

✓ Pay extra attention to strong and weak pieces of support.

The task is to find a choice that’s supported by information in the stimulus. So if the entire passage is "weak" (filled with qualifiers such as "sometimes" or "rarely" or "not all"), there's a good chance you can rule out choices that feel strong (featuring words like "all," "always," "every," "none" or "never").

✓ To test a choice, ask, “Can I point to any parts in the passage that actively support this claim?”

We don't recommend that you spend much time trying to make a prediction for "Strongly Supported" questions, since there could be so many claims that are legitimately supported. Instead, you can evaluate each choice by comparing it with the passage and asking, "Does anything in the passage actively support this claim?"

Try to avoid comparing choices with each other—sometimes, students get caught up in thinking about how a choice makes them feel, or they try to make a choice be right by adding assumptions to justify it, and these mistakes are easier to make when comparing the choices with each other.

Go and evaluate each choice in this way, and then click on the link below to compare your thinking with ours.

[[☃ explanation 1]]
[[☃ explanation 2]]
[[☃ explanation 3]]
[[☃ explanation 4]]
[[☃ explanation 5]]

###Summary for Strongly Supported questions

✓ Look for relationships.
✓ Diagram any conditional statements.
✓ Make a sketch if appropriate.
✓ Note strong language.
✓ Note weak language.
✓ Test the choices by asking, "Is it supported?"

###Common incorrect choices

Wrong choices are those that aren't strongly supported by the information in the stimulus. Here are a few of the usual suspects:

• Choices with language stronger than the passage's language. When it comes to making inferences, weaker claims are easier to support. So strong claims are less likely to be the answer, as they require more in the stimulus to back them up.
• Be wary of choices that contain info that is outside the scope of the stimulus. If a choice introduces a new term or idea, it is unlikely to be supported by the information given.

###Your turn!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

• There are often many possible inferences and it’s usually not possible to guess which one will appear among the choices for a strongly supported implication question. That’s typical.

• The answer can be an inference that seems quite remote from the information discussed in the stimulus, or it can be a fairly obvious inference that almost seems to reiterate something mentioned in the stimulus. So don’t turn away from a choice just because it seems too obvious.

• Never add your own assumptions to the information in the passage! This will take some practice, especially for some of the higher-difficulty questions, so be patient with yourself and keep reminding yourself to use only what’s provided to you in the passage.

• Sometimes it can help to map out or draw some of the items from the passage. Consider the statement, “Last year, Country X sold 30% more books than it did the previous year, while Country Y sold 60% more books than Country X did last year but 10% fewer books than Country X did the previous year.” It would likely be very beneficial to sketch a quick chart to keep track of the relationships, so don’t hesitate on Test Day or try to keep everything in your head.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to infer a dispute

These questions usually ask you to determine a topic on which two speakers disagree.

Sometimes, the question will ask you what the speakers agree on, so make sure to read the question stem (below the passage) carefully.

The answer will be a statement about which we know both of the speakers’ opinions, and those opinions are opposing (or aligned, if you're asked about a point of agreement).

###What should I do?

✓ Understand each speaker’s argument in simple terms: Try to paraphrase each speaker’s conclusion and support.

✓ Test each choice: Do both speakers have an opinion on the statement in that choice? If so, do those opinions differ from each other?

Top Tip 1: Try not to use your memory when testing the choice. Refer back to the arguments frequently!

Top Tip 2: Compare the choices against the stimulus, not against each other.

Top Tip 3: Some students find it useful to keep track of opinions using their pencil. As you go through the choices, you can jot the initials of each speaker and mark a plus (+) or a minus (-) next to the initials to indicate the position each speaker would take on each choice. When you find a choice for which you have a + in one column and a - in the other, then you’ve found the answer! And if the speaker doesn't have an opinion, you can eliminate the choice immediately.

###Common wrong choice types

• Not enough info: Some wrong choices will be statements for which we can’t infer one or both speakers’ opinion
• Areas of agreement: Some wrong choices are statements about which the speakers agree instead of disagree.

##Infer an issue in dispute

These questions involve two speakers who disagree about something. Sometimes, they draw similar conclusions but make opposing claims along the way. Other times, they draw opposing conclusions. Your task is to identify a point of disagreement.

###How do we recognize Infer a Dispute questions?

To recognize these questions, look for language about “disagreements” and “points at issue”:

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Sarah and Paul disagree over whether

On the basis of their statements, Winchell and Trent are committed to disagreeing over whether

###Example

Physician: There were approximately 83,400 trampoline-related injuries last year. This suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous and should therefore be used only under professional supervision.

Trampoline enthusiast: I disagree. In the past ten years sales of home trampolines have increased much more than trampoline-related injuries have: 260 percent in sales compared with 154 percent in injuries. Every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that the physician and the trampoline enthusiast disagree over whether

(A) trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them
(B) home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries
(C) the rate of trampoline-related injuries, in terms of the number of injuries per trampoline user, is declining
(D) professional supervision of trampoline use tends to reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
(E) trampoline use is an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision

###How might we tackle this question?

✓ Identify the conclusion and support of each speaker: A good way to start is to separate the argument's conclusion from its support.

Physician’s conclusion

• Trampolines should only be used only under professional supervision

because

Physician’s support

• There were approximately 83,400 trampoline-related injuries last year [and]
• This suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous.

Trampoline enthusiast’s conclusion

• I disagree (read: Trampolines should NOT only be used only under professional supervision).

because

Trampoline enthusiast’s support

• In the past ten years sales of home trampolines have increased much more than trampoline-related injuries have: 260 percent in sales compared with 154 percent in injuries.

• Every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision.

Breaking down the logic of each argument makes it easier to compare them.

✓ Test each choice and take notes: You can mark each speaker’s initials next to each choice and note whether each speaker agrees, disagrees, or has no opinion. Many students like to use a +, -, or ? for their shorthand, but you can use whatever makes sense to you and is quick. If a speaker doesn’t have an opinion on the claim presented in the choice, you can immediately rule out that choice and move to the next one.

Sometimes, the topic won't lend itself to a "yes/no" or "agree/disagree", but rather a more specific opinion such as "more/less" or "well-prepared/ill-prepared." You can shorthand these ideas in the same way.

(A) trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them

• Physician: Agree—the physician clearly believes that trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them.
• Enthusiast: No opinion—careful here! When the enthusiast responds, “I disagree”, it’s not a disagreement of the evidence about how the rate of injury, it’s about whether professional supervision is necessary.

(B) home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries

• Physician: No opinion—we don’t know whether the physician believes that home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries (as opposed to public trampolines, for example).

(C) the rate of trampoline-related injuries, in terms of the number of injuries per trampoline user, is declining

• Physician: No opinion—the physician doesn’t address whether the rate of trampoline-related injuries is declining, staying the same, or increasing.

(D) professional supervision of trampoline use tends to reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries

• Physician: Agree—we can infer from the physician’s argument that the physician believes professional supervision would reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
• Enthusiast: No opinion—the enthusiast doesn’t necessarily disagree with this claim, but rather believes that professional supervision isn’t necessary. The enthusiast focuses on arguing that risks are present even with professional supervision.

(E) trampoline use is an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision

• Physician: Agree—the physician states this claim clearly in his or her conclusion.
• Enthusiast: Disagree—when the enthusiast states, “I disagree”, we see from the nature of the evidence that the enthusiast doesn’t believe that professional supervision is absolutely necessary.

(E) is the answer, because one of the speakers agrees and the other speaker disagrees with the claim presented in (E).

###Summary

✓ Identify the conclusion and support of each speaker.
✓ Test each choice and take notes.

###Common incorrect choices

Here are a few typical wrong choices:

• claims about which both speakers agree (if the question asks for a point of disagreement), or vice versa
• claims about which one or both speakers don’t have an opinion

###Your turn!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

• Two people cannot agree or disagree on a claim unless both speakers have an explicit or implicit opinion about that claim. We can’t just guess at what a speaker might believe.
• It can be helpful to mark a “+” or “-” or “?” and each speaker’s initials next to a choice in order to keep track of whether each speaker agrees, disagrees, or doesn’t have an opinion about that choice’s statement.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to "identify the technique"

Here, you’re being asked to describe the reasoning of an argument: the way it uses support to justify a conclusion. You can think of these as questions about structure, method of reasoning, and technique. They’re not about what an argument says or whether it’s a good argument—just about how it’s built. What is the arguer doing, in other words?

Wrong choices will almost always contain an idea that doesn’t match up with the passage, so you can either make a prediction and select the answer that reflects that prediction, or you can “match” each choice against the argument and eliminate the choices that contain an unmatched idea.

###Some helpful practices

✓ Make a prediction

• What is the arguer doing in the conclusion? Refuting? Supporting?
• What kind of support is the arguer using? Analogy? Counterexample? Appeal to authority?

✓ Test the choices

• If you made a prediction, find the choice that matches that prediction.
• If you didn’t make a prediction, compare each choice with the stimulus and ask yourself if every piece of that choice is illustrated in the passage. If a choice says that the arguer makes a generalization, ask yourself: “Is there actually a generalization in the conclusion?”

##How is the argument built?

"Identify the technique" questions will ask you to describe the reasoning of an argument—the way it uses support to justify a conclusion. These questions focus on structure, method, and technique. They’re not concerned with what the argument says or whether it’s strong—just how it’s built.

###How do we recognize ID the technique questions?

These questions can be asked in a variety of ways. They can all be more or less paraphrased as: “What technique does the speaker use?”

The argument proceeds by

Which of the following is a technique of reasoning used in the argument?

In her argument, the executive’s reasoning does which one of the following?

Sometimes these questions involve two speakers engaged in debate. In these questions, you’re usually asked about the reasoning of the second speaker—for example:

Speaker Z responds to Speaker X's argument by doing which one of the following?

###Example

Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed. Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.

Economist: There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning. Indeed, it convinced the country's leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.

The economist responds to the critic by

(A) indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist's prediction was conditioned did not obtain

(B) distinguishing between a prediction that has not yet turned out to be correct and one that has turned out to be incorrect

(C) attempting to show that the critic's statements are mutually inconsistent

(D) offering a particular counterexample to a general claim asserted by the critic

(E) offering evidence against one of the critic's factual premises

###How might we tackle this question?

✓ Take stock: Is the question about a standalone claim or is it about a debate?

A good first step is to notice how many sides there are to the argument being discussed. Sometimes, there’s just one speaker making one isolated claim. Other times, a speaker makes a claim that’s presented as a response to some other view. Finally, some of these questions involve two speakers engaged in debate.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

So, let’s take stock of our example question: it includes two speakers, the Economist and the Critic, who are engaged in debate. The Critic makes a positive argument, and the Economist makes a negative argument—a rebuttal.

✓ Identify the argument’s conclusion and support.

Now that we’ve identified two sides to the debate, it’s a good idea to break down the conclusion and support for each:

Critic’s conclusion: Your forecast last year was (once again) bumbling

because

Support:

• You predicted that this country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed, [but]
• Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.

Economist’s conclusion: There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning

because

Support: Indeed, it convinced the country's leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.

✓ Look for common argument structures.

Theoretically, there's an infinite number of ways to build an argument. There are a few common methods of reasoning that appear again and again on these questions, however, and you can examine them in more detail in our article about Types of evidence.

It’s quite possible that the argument you’re examining doesn’t exhibit a common argument structure; still, when you come across an argument that fits nicely into one of these categories, you can save time and energy by noticing the pattern.

✓ Rethink the argument, replacing specific terms with general ones.

Another way to identify an argument’s structure is to rewrite (or rather, rethink) it in a way that strips away the particulars. This allows you to focus on structure instead of details. For example:

In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country’s economy would soon go into recession

could be thought of as

You made a bad prediction that something would happen.

So in its entirety, the argument could be reconsidered in this way:

Critic’s actual argument

• In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed. Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.

Critic’s argument, rephrased

• Your prediction was bad. You predicted that something would happen unless there was a change. In the end, that something didn’t happen.

Economist’s actual argument

• There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning. Indeed, it convinced the country's leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.

Economist’s argument, rephrased

• My prediction wasn’t bad. There was a change. That’s why the something didn’t happen.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

✓ Predict the answer whenever possible.

For technique questions, it’s very helpful to have a specific prediction before evaluating the choices. Based on the thinking that we’ve done, we could predict that the economist is disagreeing with the critic by showing that the critic’s support isn’t relevant, since there was a change in policy.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

✓ Look for answers that describe the structure and eliminate those that misstate the conclusion.

If you have a clear anticipation of the answer—whether it’s a common argument structure that you recognized or a description of the logic in your own words—your next step would be to match your anticipation to the answer.

However, if you don’t have a strong prediction, you can go through the choices and eliminate any that misstate what the arguer is doing in his or her conclusion. While structure is most important, it’s also necessary that the answer accurately state what the arguer is doing in the conclusion. For example, if the arguer is rebutting a common theory, you can eliminate any choices that state that the arguer is supporting or conceding something.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

###Summary

To review, keep the following tips in mind when you confront an Identify the Technique question:

✓ Identify the argument’s conclusion and support.
✓ Look for common argument structures.
✓ Rethink the argument, replacing specific terms with general ones.
✓ Predict the answer whenever possible, paraphrasing how the argument’s support justifies its conclusion.
✓ If you don’t have a strong prediction, look for answers that describe the structure and eliminate those that misstate the conclusion.

###Common Incorrect Choices

• Not matching: Usually, the wrong choices in this type of question will describe something that the arguer isn’t actually doing. For example, if a choice begins with, “The arguer draws a generalization…” but the arguer only addresses specifics in the passage, then that choice must be incorrect.

###Your turn!

Give the strategies you learned in this article a try!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

• Identify the technique questions can use a single speaker's argument or two speakers' arguments.
• Try to stay focused on what the arguer is doing, as opposed to what the arguer is specifically saying.
• Practice predicting the answer so that you don’t waste time carefully considering the wrong choices one at a time.
• Be ruthless in eliminating choices—as soon as a choice describes something that isn’t happening in the passage, you can rule it out without even necessarily finishing your evaluation of that choice.
• Identify the Technique questions are close cousins of Flaw questions; both types ask you to describe what the arguer is doing. Flaw questions go one step further to ask you what the arguer is doing that's unsound.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to "identify the role" a piece of the argument is playing

This question is asking you to describe the individual role that a statement is playing in a larger argument. More important than what the statement is *saying* is what what the statement is *doing*. The role of a statement is like the role of someone in your life. If someone asked, “what role does your accountant play?”, you wouldn’t answer, “He likes the Phillies and has two dogs.” Instead, you’d describe your accountant’s function: “He does my taxes and makes sure my investments are balanced.”

Wrong choices will often describe a role in the argument that some *other* claim is playing, or one that doesn’t exist at all in the argument. It’s important to understand the structure of the argument and what each piece is accomplishing.

**✓ Mark the statement in question before reading the passage:** That way you’ll be able to refer to it easily without having to look for it each time you need it.

**✓ Identify the *main* conclusion and support:** What is the arguer’s main opinion, and what information is provided to support that argument?

**✓ Categorize the statement in question:** What is the claim in question doing in the argument? How does it relate to the other statements? Is it a premise, a conclusion, or both (sub-conclusion)?

**✓ Match your prediction to a choice:** Look for the choice that describes the role you’ve identified.

##Identify the role

Some questions ask you to describe the individual role that a statement is playing in a larger argument. These questions require you to understand the statement in question, but even more important is your understanding of its context and of the argument’s conclusion. Everything in an argument is in the service of its conclusion(s), so you must clarify the relationship between the statement and the conclusion.

###How do we recognize ID the role questions?

The questions themselves—sometimes known as question stems—tend to be longer than average, since they usually quote a specific claim from the passage (represented by XXXXX in the examples below).

Examples

The claim that XXXXX plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played by the claim that XXXXX?

Let’s look at a real LSAT example together, and we’ll examine some approaches that may help you.

###Example

Does the position of a car driver's seat have a significant impact on driving safety? It probably does. Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly. A driver who is uncomfortable eventually becomes fatigued, which makes it difficult to concentrate on the road. Likewise, the better the visibility from the driver's seat, the more aware the driver can be of road conditions and other vehicles.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly?

(A) It is the conclusion drawn in the argument.

(B) It is a claim that the argument shows to be inconsistent with available evidence.

(C) It is used to provide a causal explanation for an observed phenomenon.

(D) It describes evidence that the argument ultimately refutes.

(E) It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion drawn in the argument.

###What next?

✓ Mark the statement in the passage first
Role questions tell you what you need to focus on up front. One way to make sure you see the statement in question on your first read is to mark it before you start reading. Some students like to mark the claim in the passage margins, and others like to underline the claim directly in the passage:

Does the position of a car driver's seat have a significant impact on driving safety? It probably does. Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly A driver who is uncomfortable eventually becomes fatigued, which makes it difficult to concentrate on the road. Likewise, the better the visibility from the driver's seat, the more aware the driver can be of road conditions and other vehicles.

This will also make it easier to refer back to the statement as you consider the choices.

✓ Identify the conclusion and support
After you’ve underlined the statement you’re being asked about, a good next step is to break down the argument’s conclusion and support. Many students find it helpful to think of the argument in the structure of “[Conclusion], because [support].”

Conclusion

• The position of a car driver's seat probably does have a significant impact on driving safety

because

Support

• Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly.
• A driver who is uncomfortable eventually becomes fatigued, and
• Being fatigued makes it difficult to concentrate on the road.
• Likewise, the better the visibility from the driver's seat, the more aware the driver can be of road conditions and other vehicles.

✓ Categorize the statement and predict the answer.
After you’ve mapped out the conclusion and support, you can try to anticipate the answer (without looking at the choices!) by categorizing the statement in question in terms of its role in the argument. Is it the main conclusion? Is it part of the support? Is it a subsidiary conclusion (a conclusion that follows from some support but also itself supports another claim)?

[[☃ explanation 1]]

What category does the claim that driving position affects both comfort and visibility fall into?

It’s not the main conclusion – we’ve already established that the conclusion is that a driver’s seat position probably greatly affects safety.

Top tip: Ask “Why should I believe that?”
Does the statement support the conclusion? Here’s a test: if the statement would make sense as an answer to “Why should I believe that?” in reference to the conclusion, it’s acting as support. In this case, that test works: “Driving position affects both comfort and visibility” does help to explain why a driver’s seat position might affect safety. Then, the two sentences following the claim in question explain how that might be true.

So, it would seem that our statement is a premise: it is a claim that’s not supported by anything else but that is helping to support the conclusion.

✓ Look for a choice that matches the role you predicted.

At this point, you’re ready to find a matching choice. As you read through the choices, categorize them according to the roles they describe. This will help you cut past variations in wording and recognize familiar concepts.

Let’s try it:

(A) It is the conclusion drawn in the argument.
We can quickly eliminate this choice, because we know that the claim in question is support, not the conclusion.

(B) It is a claim that the argument shows to be inconsistent with available evidence.
We can eliminate this choice, because the claim in question supports the arguer’s conclusion—it isn’t an opposing view that the arguer is rebutting.

(C) It is used to provide a causal explanation for an observed phenomenon.
This choice doesn’t describe the role of the claim in question, because there isn’t an “observed phenomenon” present in the passage. The arguer believes that driving position probably affects driving safety—that’s not an observed phenomenon, though.

(D) It describes evidence that the argument ultimately refutes.
This isn’t accurate, because the claim in question supports the arguer’s conclusion, so it wouldn’t make sense for the arguer to refute it.

(E) It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion drawn in the argument.
This description matches our prediction and is the answer.

###Summary

✓ Mark the statement in the passage.
✓ Identify the conclusion and support.
✓ Categorize the statement and predict the answer.
✓ Look for a choice that matches the role you predicted.

###Common incorrect choices

Only partly correct: Sometimes, the first part of a choice will match the role of the claim in question; for example, the choice might start with, “It is a premise used to support the conclusion that” when the claim in question is, in fact, a premise used to support the conclusion. However, be careful to ensure that the conclusion cited in the choice you’re evaluating is the correct conclusion.

Wrong point of view: When there are multiple points of view in the passage—for example, a critic’s opinion and the arguer’s opposing opinion—make sure to keep track of them carefully and don’t select a choice that ascribes the claim in question to the wrong voice.

###Try one on your own!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

Separate the conclusion from the support
Keep practicing analyzing arguments to separate the conclusion from the support; role questions are only one of many for which this skill is very important.

Make a strong prediction
The choices for a role question are often very abstract, so the stronger your prediction is, the better your chances of understanding which choices to eliminate.

Ask “What is it doing?” not “What is it about?”
These questions are similar to questions in Reading Comprehension that ask you to describe the purpose or function of a claim, a sentence or a paragraph; understanding what a statement is doing is much more helpful than simply reading the statement repeatedly to understand what it’s saying

##A quick guide to approaching questions about principles

In this question, you’re asked to **identify the principle** that underlies the argument in the passage. You might be asked to identify the principle that will **justify** the argument, in some cases. Or, you might be asked to identify the principle that’s **illustrated** by the passage, where the passage contains a situation rather than a conclusion/support-based argument.

Wrong choices will often contain pieces that aren’t relevant to the scope of the argument. In principles that **justify** questions, wrong choices will be very similar to wrong choices in **strengthen** questions—they’ll either weaken the argument, or have no impact.

Usually, you won’t want to make a prediction for argument-based passages, but you may be able to make one for situation-based passage. A principle for a situation-based passage would resemble principles that we use in everyday life, such as, “It’s better to be safe than sorry”, or, “Sometimes the solution to one problem creates a new problem.”

**✓ Restate the argument or situation in your own words. If the passage is an argument, it's good to identify the conclusion and support.** If the passage is situational instead of argumentative, restate the situation in your own words. What’s happening, and how do the pieces of action affect each other?

**✓ Compare each choice against the stimulus and consider the impact of each choice.** Which one accomplishes the task?

**✓ Diagram if necessary.** This will be most often helpful in questions that give you the principle in the passage, then ask you to find the situation that **illustrates** or **conforms to** that principle. The principle is often presented in the form of conditional logic, which many students find helpful to map out with their pencil.

##How do we work with principles in the Logical Reasoning section?

LSAT questions about principles (also called “propositions” or “generalizations”) can take several forms:

• Identify the principle: The passage is an argument or a situation, and the principle is in the choices.

Which one of the following generalizations is most clearly illustrated by the passage?
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most help to justify the reasoning in the editorial?
The situation as Madden describes it best illustrates which one of the following propositions?

• Find a situation that conforms to a principle: The choices are all arguments or situation, and the principle is in the passage.

Which one of the following judgments conforms most closely to the principle cited by the columnist?
Which one of the following provides the best illustration of the principle above?

• Match the principles: There is a principle expressed implicitly in the situation or argument in the passage, and the task is to select the choice that expresses the same principle implicitly. This type of principle question is covered in its own article, Match principles.

Principles occasionally show up in several other question types, including Strengthen and Implications. For instance, the choices for a Strengthen question might take the form of principles that could support a claim.

###What exactly is a principle?

You can think of a principle as a general rule, definition, or value that can apply to many different specific scenarios. For example, “Sometimes, unforeseen challenges can make you stronger” is a principle that could govern an infinite number of specific situations, including these examples:

• Eobard lost his job at the same time that his partner broke off their relationship, leaving him feeling sad. Looking to distract himself, he signed up for a photography class and discovered a real passion for nature photography. This led to a lucrative and fulfilling career for Eobard.
• When Soon-Ling broke her hand, she was determined to learn how to use her non-dominant (right) hand. Now that her dominant hand is fully healed, Soon-Ling is ambidextrous in most activities.

Laws are a type of principle as well. It wouldn’t make sense to create the following laws:

• George must wear a seat belt while driving his truck.
• Tonia must wear a seat belt while driving her sedan.
• Dianne must wear a seat belt while driving her coupe.
• George must wear a seat belt while driving Dianne’s coupe.
• Etc…

Can you see that these laws are too specific to be useful? It’s much simpler—and achieves the same result—if we create an overarching principle instead:

• One must wear a seat belt while driving any vehicle.

This general principle now governs any of the specific situations that we listed above, as well as all other people and vehicles.

###Example: Identify the principle

Hospitals, universities, labor unions, and other institutions may well have public purposes and be quite successful at achieving them even though each of their individual staff members does what he or she does only for selfish reasons.

Which one of the following generalizations is most clearly illustrated by the passage?

(A) What is true of some social organizations is not necessarily true of all such organizations.

(B) An organization can have a property that not all of its members possess.

(C) People often claim altruistic motives for actions that are in fact selfish.

(D) Many social institutions have social consequences unintended by those who founded them.

(E) Often an instrument created for one purpose will be found to serve another purpose just as effectively.

####How could we approach this question?

✓ Restate the situation or argument.

For Identify the Principle questions (in which the choices are principles), you’ll be given either an argument (with a conclusion and evidence) or a situation. If it’s an argument, you can identify its evidence and conclusion (the way we do for Assumption, Strengthen/Weaken, Flaw, and others); if it’s a situation, you can rephrase the situation in simple but accurate terms.

In our example, we’re given a specific situation but not an argument. If we read for structure, certain keywords might stand out to us:

Hospitals, universities, labor unions, and other institutions may well have public purposes and be quite successful at achieving them even though each of their individual staff members does what he or she does only for selfish reasons.

Since “even though” signals a contrast, and contrasts are usually rhetorically interesting, we can start there. The arguer is essentially remarking on how:

Even though each individual at an institution can be acting selfishly, the institution as a whole can accomplish good things for the public.

✓ Match your prediction, if you have one.

In this example, we can look in the choices for our prediction. If you didn’t make a prediction, though, you can also evaluate each choice by asking, “Does every part of this choice ‘match’ with something that’s happening in the passage? Or does any part of this choice stray from the passage?”

Try evaluating each of the choices. Even if you’re 100% confident in your answer, practice evaluating each choice and then studying our rationale for that choice below. Build your ability to identify why wrong choices are wrong—instead of focusing only on the answer— and you’ll increase your confidence and speed on Test Day.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

[[☃ explanation 2]]

[[☃ explanation 3]]

[[☃ explanation 4]]

[[☃ explanation 5]]

Now, let’s work through an example of a Principle question in which the principle is in the passage.

###Example: Find a situation that conforms

If an act of civil disobedience—willfully breaking a specific law in order to bring about legal reform—is done out of self-interest alone and not out of a concern for others, it cannot be justified. But one is justified in performing an act of civil disobedience if one's conscience requires one to do so.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principles stated above?

(A) Keisha's protest against what she perceived to be a brutal and repressive dictatorship in another country was an act of justified civil disobedience, because in organizing an illegal but peaceful demonstration calling for a return to democratic leadership in that country, she acted purely out of concern for the people of that country.

(B) Janice's protest against a law that forbade labor strikes was motivated solely by a desire to help local mine workers obtain fair wages. But her conscience did not require her to protest this law, so Janice did not perform an act of justified civil disobedience.

(C) In organizing an illegal protest against the practice in her country of having prison inmates work eighteen hours per day, Georgette performed an act of justified civil disobedience: she acted out of concern for her fellow inmates rather than out of concern for herself.

(D) Maria's deliberate violation of a law requiring prepublication government approval of all printed materials was an act of justified civil disobedience: though her interest as an owner of a publishing company would be served by repeal of the law, she violated the law because her conscience required doing so on behalf of all publishers.

(E) In organizing a parade of motorcyclists riding without helmets through the capital city, Louise's act was not one of justified civil disobedience: she was willfully challenging a specific law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets, but her conscience did not require her to organize the parade.

###How might we approach this question?

✓ Diagram or jot down the principle in your own words.

Principles in the Logical Reasoning section are often presented as rules definitions, or laws. Many of them feature conditional logic which can lend itself to diagrams. Many students find easier to evaluate each choice against a diagram than against the entire passage.

If there isn’t any conditional logic, you’ll usually still benefit from jotting down a quick summary of the principle that you’re given.

Our example passage shows some promising conditional logic signals:

If an act of civil disobedience—willfully breaking a specific law in order to bring about legal reform—is done out of self-interest alone and not out of a concern for others, it cannot be justified. But one is justified in performing an act of civil disobedience if one's conscience requires one to do so.

Let’s diagram our principles in shorthand:

• civ. disobedience = willfully breaking a specific law in order to bring about legal reform
• if civ. disobed. and self-int. and not concern for others, then not justified
• if civ. disobed. and/ req’d by conscience, then justified

Note: To strengthen your conditional logic skills and perform better on these question types (as well as on other Logical Reasoning question types and parts of Analytical Reasoning), we recommend these interactive articles:

• If X, then Y
• Conditional reasoning and logical equivalence

✓ Evaluate each choice against the principle.

We can’t predict a specific answer for these question types, because any given principle can govern an infinite number of specific scenarios. So we’ll evaluate each choice one at a time, asking, “Does every part of this specific situation conform to the rule/law/definition that the passage presents?” Four of the choices will stray in some way.

Go ahead and evaluate each choice on your own, then compare each of your evaluations to ours:

[[☃ explanation 1]]

[[☃ explanation 2]]

[[☃ explanation 3]]

[[☃ explanation 4]]

[[☃ explanation 5]]

###Summary

Identify the principle:

✓ Restate the situation or argument.
✓ Match your prediction, if you have one.

Find a situation that conforms to a principle:

✓ Diagram or jot down the principle in your own words.
✓ Evaluate each choice against the principle.

###Common incorrect choices

** Identify the principle:**

• Strays from the situation: These choices are still principles, but they contain parts that don’t match with any part of the passage’s situation or argument.

Find a situation that conforms to a principle:

• Faulty deductions: These choices commit logical errors, such as believing that If X then Y is equivalent to If not X then not Y or If Y then X.
• Could be true but doesn’t necessarily conform: These choices are situations or arguments that could be true but the passage’s set of principles doesn’t necessarily support them.

###Your turn

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ explanation 1]]

[[☃ explanation 2]]

[[☃ explanation 3]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 2]]

###A few final thoughts on principles

• Get ahead of the task. After you recognize that you’ll be working with a principle, it can be helpful to determine whether the principle is in the passage, in the choices, or implied. That will allow you to identify exactly how you’re being asked to work with the principle.
• Be ready to zoom in and out. Principles can be very broad, very specific, or anywhere in between. If you’re expecting to strengthen an argument with a principle such as, “Daisies can cure depression”, the answer could well be, “Certain flowers can cure depression”, or, “Certain plants can cure some maladies”, or, “Certain objects can provide some types of health benefits”, etc.
• Principle questions often “act” like other question types. If you improve in Entailment questions, for example, you’ll improve in questions that ask you to identify a situation that conforms to a principle. If you improve in Strengthen questions, you’ll improve in questions that ask you to identify a principle that justifies the passage’s reasoning.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to match the structure of an argument in a choice to the structure of the argument in the passage

This question is asking you to choose an argument from among the choices that is **structurally the same** as the argument in the passage. In other words, the answer will have the same *kind* of conclusion and the same *kind* of evidence as the passage.

These questions tend to be challenging, most of all because they take so much time. Part of the reason is that they’re long—you don’t just have to read one argument, you have to read up to six! Given the time constraint, these are questions that many students wisely choose to skip and return to if they have time.

Wrong choices will be arguments that either have a different kind of conclusion than the passage does, or a different kind of support than the passage does, or both.

**Top tip:** *Topic* doesn’t matter at all—only the reasoning pattern does. It’s worth noting that the *order* in which elements appear doesn’t matter either; a passage with the conclusion at the end can match perfectly with a choice with the conclusion at the beginning, for example.

###Some helpful practices

**✓ Identify the conclusion and support of the original argument:** What is the arguer’s primary conclusion, and what information is provided to support that conclusion?

**✓ Consider diagramming the passage’s structure:** If you see some repeating terms and they seem to have a discernible relationship to each other, or if the entire passage is based on conditional logic, you can often map the argument in shorthand in order to understand its pieces better. For example, if the passage shows a structure of, “It could be X, Y, or Z, but it can’t be X, so it must be Y or Z”, then the answer will reflect that same structure.

**✓ Characterize the conclusion:** Is it a definite prediction? Is it an indefinite recommendation?

**✓ Characterize the argument in general terms:** Ignoring the specific topic to a reasonable extent, can you phrase the argument in a general way? For example, "An event has two possible causes. The arguer rules out one cause, so it must be the other cause."

**✓ Eliminate as many choices as you can:** If you are pressed for time, one way to begin evaluating choices is to eliminate a choice as soon as its conclusion doesn't match. If the type of conclusion is very different from the original argument’s conclusion, it’s not likely to be a match for the passage's structure. *Be warned!* This strategy will not work in all cases—time permitting, you should try to eliminate options based on the reasoning structure of the argument *as a whole*.

##How do we match the patterns and structures of arguments?

“Match the structure” questions on the LSAT test your ability to determine how an argument goes. It begins with an argument in the stimulus and then asks you to choose another argument from among the choices that is structurally the same.

###How do we recognize “Match the structure” questions?

In Match the Structure questions, you’ll always see:

• An argument in the passage
• Arguments in each of the choices

The questions themselves are worded in a variety of ways, including:

The pattern of reasoning in which of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

These questions tend to take more time to complete than most of the other question types. Why? Well, they’re long—you don’t have to read just one argument, you have to read six (the stimulus plus the five choices)! Given the time constraint, these are questions that many students choose to skip and return to if they have time.

###Example

Watching music videos from the 1970s would give the viewer the impression that the music of the time was dominated by synthesizer pop and punk rock. But this would be a misleading impression. Because music videos were a new art form at the time, they attracted primarily cutting-edge musicians.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to that of the argument above?

(A) Our view of pre-printing-press literature can never be accurate, because the surviving works of ancient authors are those that were deemed by copyists most likely to be of interest to future readers.

(B) Our memory of 1960s TV shows could hardly be improved, because so many of the television programs of the era are still rerun today.

(C) Future generations' understanding of today's publishing trends will be distorted if they judge by works published in CD-ROM format, since it is primarily publishers interested in computer games that are using CD-ROM.

(D) Our understanding of silent films is incomplete, because few filmmakers of the time realized that the film stock they were using would disintegrate over time.

(E) Our notion of fashion trends will probably be accurate if we rely on TV fashion programs, despite the fact that these programs deliberately select the most outrageous outfits in order to get the viewers' attention.

###How might we tackle this question?

✓ Identify the conclusion and support of the original argument. We can start by breaking down the argument. What is the arguer’s primary conclusion, and what information is provided to support that conclusion?

Conclusion

• The impression you get from watching music videos from the 1970s—that the music of the time was dominated by synthesizer pop and punk rock— is a misleading impression.

because

Support

• Music videos were a new art form at the time, [so]
• They attracted primarily cutting-edge musicians.

✓ Consider diagramming the passage’s structure. Matching structure questions often involve linking conditional statements. Because these can sometimes be hard to keep straight in your head—and because the same conditional relationships can be expressed in so many different ways in the English language—many students find it helpful to diagram the statements in these cases.

In our example passage, we don’t really see several repeating terms or statements that are linked. Suppose, though, you see an argument such as the following:

Unless Brenda goes to the party, Jerome won’t go. Paul will only go if either Jerome or Talia goes, and neither Talia nor Brenda is going. Therefore, Paul won’t go.

If this kind of passage makes your brain hurt, try to diagram it, replacing all of those complicated English phrases into symbols.

• not B $\rightarrow$ not J

• P $\rightarrow$ J or T

• P $\rightarrow$ not T and not B

• Therefore, not P.

This diagram represents a template that we can then try to plug each choice into; the answer will have the same structure (although almost certainly with different variables). The wrong choices will possess a different argument structure.

✓ Characterize the conclusion. Is the argument’s conclusion of a distinct type?

• Is the conclusion definite or indefinite?
• Is the conclusion a prediction? A recommendation? Something else?

In our music example above, the conclusion is that a certain impression is misleading. That’s a definite conclusion (the arguer is certain), and it’s a statement that something is false.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

✓ Characterize the argument in general terms. Suppose a diagram wouldn’t help and the argument doesn’t seem to fall into any familiar categories. That seems to be what we’re experiencing here. What can you do?

One technique is to re-write the argument in more general, abstract terms, using our argument breakdown. Once again, here’s our argument structure:

Conclusion

• [The impression you get from watching music videos from the 1970s—that the music of the time was dominated by synthesizer pop and punk rock—] is actually a misleading impression

because

Support

• Music videos were a new art form at the time, [so]
• They attracted primarily cutting-edge musicians.

Ignoring the specifics, we can describe the structure like this:

• The impression we get about a certain thing (from the examples we see) is misleading because it comes from an unrepresentative sample of that thing.

With this general blueprint, it should be easier to find a matching argument.

✓ Eliminate choices with noticeable mismatches. One way to begin evaluating choices is to eliminate a choice as soon as its conclusion doesn’t match. This could save a significant amount of time, especially in cases in which you can eliminate three or more choices based on the conclusion alone. We’ll also keep our general characterization in mind, which is:

“We might get a certain impression about a certain thing, but that impression would be misleading because it comes from an unrepresentative sample of that thing.”

[[☃ explanation 1]]
[[☃ explanation 2]]
[[☃ explanation 3]]
[[☃ explanation 4]]
[[☃ explanation 5]]

###Summary

✓ Identify the conclusion and support of the original argument
✓ Consider diagramming the passage’s structure
✓ Characterize the conclusion
✓ Characterize the argument in general terms
✓ Eliminate choices with noticeable mismatches

###Common Incorrect Choices

• Definite instead of indefinite conclusion, and vice versa: A definite conclusion in the passage will usually match with a definite conclusion in the answer, though this isn't a hard-and-fast rule.
• Wrong type of conclusion: A prediction (for example) as a conclusion in the passage will usually match with a prediction as the conclusion in the answer—again, not a hard-and-fast rule.
• Necessary versus sufficient relationships: If conditional relationships are present, be careful to not rush through them. “X must happen in order for Y is to happen” (Y $\rightarrow$ X) is a totally different relationship than “If X happens, then Y will happen” (X $\rightarrow$ Y), even though at first glance, the terms appear in the same order in each sentence.

For more help on conditional logic, work through our favorite article on the topic, If X, then Y | Sufficiency and necessity.

###Your turn!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

• Consider skipping and coming back: Match the structure questions can often be good ones to skip and come back to later (or to skip and never come back!). They can be very time-consuming in certain cases, and the time required to get a matching structure question correct can often yield several points in easier questions instead.
• Match conclusions, then guess: Some students who find themselves short on time like to give themselves a better mathematical chance at guessing correctly by at least eliminating choices whose conclusions don’t match the conclusion in the argument, and then guessing from among the remaining choices.
• Think big picture: If and when you do tackle these questions, be sure to pay attention to structure more than the topic itself.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to match principles from the stimulus to principles in a choice

These questions are very similar to **match structure** questions, in that the stimulus is made up of an argument or situation, and each choice represents an argument or situation. Your job is to find the choice that exhibits the **same principle** as the argument or situation in the passage.

Wrong choices will often present a situation or argument that has a slightly (or very) different principle governing it than the situation or argument in the passage.

Predicting the answer isn’t possible for these questions, since the topic doesn’t matter, and so we wouldn't be able to predict the answer's topic—only the underlying principle matters. However, it’s best to have a strong idea of what the passage’s principle is before moving to examine the choices.

**✓ Identify the principle that governs the passage:** Keep that principle simple but accurate. If you’re having trouble identifying the principle, ask yourself what the arguer seems to value. **why** do they recommend or predict or compare what they do?

**✓ Examine each choice in turn:** Discard the situations or arguments that stray significantly from the principle that you identified.

##How do we match the principles of two arguments or situations?

“Match principles” questions are similar to match structure questions, in that the passage represents an argument or a situation, and each choice also represents an argument or a situation. Your task is to identify the choice that illustrates the same principle as the passage does.

###How do we recognize Match Principle questions?

These questions will consist of:

• A specific situation or argument in the passage, and
• A specific situation or argument in each choice.

Examples

The principle underlying the argument above is most similar to the principle underlying which one of the following arguments?

Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle illustrated by the argument above?

###Example

Evan: I am a vegetarian because I believe it is immoral to inflict pain on animals to obtain food. Some vegetarians who share this moral reason nonetheless consume some seafood, on the grounds that it is not known whether certain sea creatures can experience pleasure or pain. But if it is truly wrong to inflict needless suffering, we should extend the benefit of the doubt to sea animals and refrain from eating seafood.

Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle illustrated by Evan's criticism of vegetarians who eat seafood?

(A) I do not know if I have repaid Farah the money she lent me for a movie ticket. She says that she does not remember whether or not I repaid her. In order to be sure that I have repaid her, I will give her the money now.

(B) It is uncertain whether all owners of the defective vehicles know that their vehicles are being recalled by the manufacturer. Thus, we should expect that some vehicles that have been recalled have not been returned.

(C) I am opposed to using incentives such as reduced taxes to attract businesses to our region. These incentives would attract businesses interested only in short-term profits. Such businesses would make our region's economy less stable, because they have no long-term commitment to the community.

(D) Updating our computer security system could lead to new contracts. The present system has no problems, but we could benefit from emphasizing a state-of-the-art system in new proposals. If we do not get new customers, the new system could be financed through higher fees for current customers.

(E) Isabel Allende lived through the tragic events of her country's recent history; no doubt her novels have been inspired by her memories of those events. Yet Allende's characters are hopeful and full of joy, indicating that Allende's own view of life has not been negatively marked by her experiences.

###How might we tackle this question?

✓ Identify the principle that governs the passage: When considering principles, it’s usually helpful to ask yourself what the arguer seems to value—in other words, why they recommend or predict or compare what they do. And if the passage contains an argument (instead of just a scenario), then it’s helpful to separate the evidence and conclusion in order to identify the principle.

In our example, we are asked about Evan’s criticism of vegetarians who eat seafood, so we can feel confident that we’re dealing with an argument:

Conclusion

• If it is truly wrong to inflict needless suffering, we should extend the benefit of the doubt to sea animals and refrain from eating seafood

because

Support

• I am a vegetarian because I believe it is immoral to inflict pain on animals to obtain food.
• Some vegetarians who share this moral reason nonetheless consume some seafood, on the grounds that
• It is not known whether certain sea creatures can experience pleasure or pain.

And what does Evan appear to value? Evan’s recommendation for responding to an unknown (whether sea creatures can experience pain) is to err on the side of caution—in other words, act in a way that prioritizes the sea creatures’ benefit.

✓ Examine each choice: It isn’t possible to predict a specific answer for Matching Principles questions, since you can’t anticipate what the topic could be. After you formulate a strong generalized idea of the passage’s principle (in this case, “err on the side of caution”), you can jump right to the choices. As you evaluate the choices, quickly eliminate any that deviate even a little bit from the principle that we identified.

[[☃ explanation 1]]
[[☃ explanation 2]]
[[☃ explanation 3]]
[[☃ explanation 4]]
[[☃ explanation 5]]

###Summary

• ✓ Identify the principle that governs the passage in general terms.
• ✓ If it’s an argument, separate the conclusion from the support.
• ✓ Examine each choice in turn.

###Your turn!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

• If you struggle with “Identify the principle” questions, then “Match principles” questions will likely be even tougher for you. Consider strengthening your principle-perceptor muscles by working through some “Identify the principle” lessons and questions before tackling more “Match principles” questions.
• “Match principle” questions are not very common on the LSAT, so many students choose to skip them in search of faster and easier points.
• Try to zoom out and sum up the “big picture” when identifying the principle: what the arguer values and how the arguer makes a point is much more important than the details of the specific topic the arguer is addressing.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to identify a flaw

This question asks you to identify a flaw in an argument’s reasoning. You can assume that the argument is defective in some way. Your job is just to figure out how. Therefore, your answer will generally be a description of something that's wrong with the argument.

Wrong choices will often sound very tempting, because they’re worded abstractly, and they usually do describe a flaw—just not the flaw that’s happening in this argument. Try to avoid the temptation of settling on a choice because “it sounds good”!

Beware! You may also occasionally see wrong choices that describe something that is true of the argument, but isn’t a flaw.

For flaw questions, a strong prediction can be extremely helpful in recognizing the answer.

###Some helpful practices

Identify the conclusion and support

• Paraphrase them simply but accurately in your own words in order to help your understanding of the argument structure.

Do a quick check for common fallacies:

• Is the arguer mistakenly assuming causation when two events are actually only correlated? Is the arguer jumping to conclusions about a larger group of people than the ones being discussed in the support? Is the arguer attacking someone's opinion just because that person's character is questionable? Does the arguer discuss one topic in the support and then draw a conclusion about a different topic?

Describe the disconnect in your own words

• If you don’t find a common fallacy, describe the disconnect between the support and conclusion in your own words. Don’t try to describe it in a scholarly or academic way—you’ll understand and retain it better if you use your own words.
• It can be helpful to pretend you’re on the opposite side of a debate than the passage’s arguer—what might you say to rebut? Be as specific as possible; for example, don’t respond with “you’re making an unwarranted assumption”, since that already describes flaws in general.

Identify the choice that matches your prediction, otherwise, eliminate strategically

• Find the choice that matches your predicted flaw, making sure to not become distracted along the way.
• If you had trouble making a prediction even after following the guidance above, try throwing out choices that describe something that isn't even happening in the passage. For example, if a choice states that the speaker generalizes from too small a sample, look to see if there's even any indication of a too-small sample in the passage. If there isn't, you can eliminate that choice.

##How do we identify flaws?

The Logical Reasoning section includes a number of questions that ask you to identify a weakness in an argument’s reasoning. You’ll be presented with an argument that is flawed in some way. Your task? To describe why the argument isn’t sound.

###How do we recognize Flaw questions?

In Flaw questions, you’ll see:

• A full argument in the passage, with a main conclusion and supporting evidence.
• Choices that contain descriptions of different flaws.

Questions of this kind are worded in a variety of ways:

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?

The argument’s reasoning is questionable because the argument fails to rule out the possibility that

The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Top tip: Pay attention to the end of the question. Some Flaw questions will actually give you some “bonus language” at the end of it—for instance, the third example above ends with, “the argument fails to rule out the possibility that”. This clue tells you to be on the lookout for a possibility that the arguer has overlooked. This is a specific kind of flaw, so you already have more information than you would have if the question asked “Which one of the following errors of reasoning does the argument commit?”

You should assume that the argument is defective in some way. Your job is to figure out how, and to select the choice that accurately describes an error or weakness.

Flaw: A reasoning error or defect; a feature of an argument's reasoning that keeps the argument from delivering the degree of support that it claims to deliver for its conclusion.

The flaws you’ll see on the LSAT include unstated assumptions, logical errors, overly-confident deductions based on insufficient empirical evidence, and rhetorical tricks that masquerade as arguments.

###What’s the difference between Identifying a Flaw and Identifying a Weakener?

• When you’re asked to identify a weakener, you’re essentially finding information in the choices that makes the argument worse than it currently is.
• When you’re asked to identify a flaw, you’re not adding any information but rather simply describing why the argument as it stands isn’t logically strong. In other words, the argument is already unsound.

Sometimes, to identify a flaw you'll need to identify a way in which you could weaken the argument! Take this simple example:

I know it’s going to rain tomorrow, because I heard a forecast for rain on my favorite radio station.

• If your task were to Identify a Flaw, you could predict, “‘A problem is that the arguer assumes that the radio station is accurate in its forecasts.”
• If your task were to Identify a Weakener, you could predict, “I’m looking for a choice that shows that the radio station isn’t always accurate in its forecasts.”

In other words, having a questionable assumption can make an argument flawed, and attacking that assumption would weaken the argument.

###Example

The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read nutrition labels. This shows that reading these labels promotes healthful dietary behavior.

The reasoning in the argument above is flawed in that the argument

(A) illicitly infers a cause from a correlation

(B) relies on a sample that is unlikely to be representative of the group as a whole

(C) confuses a condition that is necessary for a phenomenon to occur with a condition that is sufficient for that phenomenon to occur

(D) takes for granted that there are only two possible alternative explanations of a phenomenon

(E) draws a conclusion about the intentions of a group of people based solely on data about the consequences of their behavior

###How might we approach this question?

✓ Identify the conclusion and support.

A good way to start Flaw questions, as with many other argument-based question types, is to identify the conclusion and the support.

Conclusion

• Reading nutrition labels promotes healthful dietary behavior

because

Support

• The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read nutrition labels.

In every flaw question, something goes wrong when the arguer moves from the support to the conclusion, so it’s a great idea to separate the two parts of the argument.

Top tip: Don’t question the evidence itself. The accuracy of the support isn’t up for debate on the LSAT, so you must assume that it is true. Ask yourself, “Given that support, why can’t we arrive at the conclusion that the arguer seems so confident about?” In other words, the support may be true, but does it demonstrate that the conclusion must also be true?

✓ Do a quick check for common flaws.

A good next step is to check to see if the argument commits any common fallacies.

To recognize these:

1. Familiarize yourself with common flaw types
2. Always be on the lookout for common flaws’ indicators in an argument’s language and content.

Some classic LSAT flaws are discussed in our indispensable Types of Flaws article.

Are there any common fallacies in our example argument?

The argument draws a causal conclusion: reading nutrition labels causes healthful dietary behavior. Is this claim of causation justified by the support?

Whenever an argument claims something caused something else, ask:
“Is there a good reason to believe in this causation, or is the arguer simply taking two events that happen together and trying to link them?”

To infer causation from correlation is an easy mistake for arguers to commit, and the LSAT sometimes tests your ability to recognize when it’s happening!

In our example, the arguer does indeed infer from a mere correlation (the fact that the label-readers have more healthy eating habits) a causal relationship (that label reading caused them to eat more healthy foods). The reason a causal relationship can’t necessarily be inferred is that there might be other explanations for why label-readers have healthier diets: for example, maybe people who have healthier diets to begin with happen to be more prone to reading labels to make sure they’re still on track.

So our answer prediction could be: “The arguer assumes an unjustified causal relationship between two attributes: healthy eating and label-reading.”

✓ “What if?” If you don’t find a common fallacy, describe the disconnect between the conclusion and the support in your own words.

Some arguments are flawed, but not in a common way that’s easy to categorize. In these cases, your job is to articulate the flaw in your own words, and then look for the answer you’re predicting among the choices.

We did recognize a common flaw here, but let’s suppose we hadn’t. A good way to brainstorm is to look for what-ifs. The goal is to figure out how the conclusion could be false even if all of the support is true. In this case, can you think of a hypothetical in which the study results are misleading?

What if… fat is actually good for you?

What if… the label-readers eat less fat but more sugar?

What if… the people who read labels happen to make healthier choices, but not because they read labels?

Notice that these what-ifs are stated in very simple terms. It can be helpful to pretend that you’re on the opposite side of a debate than the passage’s arguer and imagine that the what-ifs are your rebuttal.

Sometimes, students make the mistake of attempting to think about the flaw in abstract, complex language because they know that many choices in flaw questions are abstract and complex. But it’s much easier to let the test be abstract and complex while you work in simple, easy-to-understand terms.

✓ Consider assumptions

Another way to structure your thinking is to ask yourself: Is the argument making any assumptions?

Yes—several!

• It assumes that the people who ate a larger proportion of fat ate more fat overall
• It assumes that eating more fat is not healthy
• It assumes that it is the label-reading, and not something else about them, and that causes label-readers to eat healthier.

If you can identify assumptions like these, take a moment to think about how they’re likely to be described among the choices. Take, for example, the assumption that eating less fat is healthier. It could be described in a variety of ways:

• The argument assumes, without providing justification, that less fat is healthier.
• The argument takes for granted that less fat is healthier.
• The argument overlooks the possibility that eating more fat isn’t necessarily less healthy.
• The argument fails to consider that eating less fat might not be healthier.

Notice that the assumption can be described positively or negatively: that X is true, or that the opposite of X is false. So be on the lookout for either formulation when you’re anticipating an assumption.

✓ Identify the choice that matches your prediction; otherwise, eliminate strategically.

When you have a strong prediction like the one we made above, you can often scan the choices without reading them in full until you find the match for your prediction. The stronger and more confident your prediction, the faster this process generally is.

Below, you can click on the explanation that corresponds to the choice that you believe matches our prediction, or you can read each explanation to see if your evaluation of that choice is similar to ours.

[[☃ explanation 1]]
[[☃ explanation 2]]
[[☃ explanation 3]]
[[☃ explanation 4]]
[[☃ explanation 5]]

###Summary

✓ Identify the conclusion and support

✓ Do a quick check for common flaws

✓ If you don’t find a common fallacy, describe the disconnect between conclusion and support in your own words

✓ Identify the choice that matches your prediction; otherwise, eliminate strategically

###Common Incorrect Choices

• Absent classics These choices describe classic flaws, but they just aren’t happening in the argument
• True statement, not relevant These choices describe possibilities that are indeed being overlooked, but they are possibilities that would have no effect on the strength of the reasoning’s support for the conclusion anyway.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

• Bad assumptions Choices that ascribe an assumption to the arguer that’s inaccurate (the arguer isn’t making that assumption at all), or too strong (the arguer isn’t assuming something that’s as extreme as what is described in the choice)

Top tip: Recognize the many phrasings of a flaw. A flaw can be described as an unwarranted assumption, as an overlooked possibility, as a confusion of two things, or as the name of a classic flaw, to list just a few of the many possibilities. Don’t cling to one phrasing of a flaw, because you could miss the answer if you do! The following flaws, while distinct in wording from each other, are all conceptually identical:

• The arguer assumes without warrant that X is the only possible cause.

• The arguer overlooks the possibility that X is not the only possible cause.

• The arguer confuses a condition that’s sufficient to bring about a certain phenomenon with a condition that’s necessary to bring about that phenomenon.

###Your turn

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###A few final thoughts on Flaw questions

• You’re a step ahead of the arguer! Tell yourself before reading the passage that you know something the arguer doesn’t: you know up front that the argument isn’t sound. That allows you to read with the purpose of finding a disconnect between the evidence and the conclusion.
• Get specific: Try not to get distracted by how abstract some of the choices in Flaw questions can be. If the wording is very vague, try replacing some of the general terms with specific terms from the passage. For example, “The arguer assumes that one event is necessary for another event to take place” can be re-thought of as, “The arguer assumes that eating fewer calories is necessary to losing weight.”
• Make up your own flawed arguments: If you want to get really strong in identifying flaws, you can practice creating your own arguments around the classic flaws, or listening for flaws around you. Can you find an example of a someone committing the flaw of an unrepresentative sample when you listen to advertisements? Can you make up your own argument for causation versus correlation?
• Mind the gap! Often, you’ll find that the arguer addresses one thing in the evidence and then jumps to another thing in the conclusion. The more subtle the jump is, the more challenging it is to identify the flaw. Don’t make the same assumption that the arguer does—try to “zoom out” and see the big picture without jumping to conclusions. For example, if you were faced with the argument, “I need to get a job because I need to make money”, it could be difficult because common sense tells us that this is a fairly reasonable statement. But logical sense should have us asking, “Is it necessary to get a job in order to make money? Or are there other potential ways to make money?” Think critically!

Good luck out there!

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to find the choice containing a Matching Flaw

This question type is asking you to find a choice containing an argument that exhibits the same flaws as the passage’s argument. It’s very important to focus on the flaws, and not get distracted by the content of the arguments in question. To “match,” two arguments only have to exhibit the same flaw; they don’t have to be on the same topic.

Wrong choices will contain arguments that exhibit either no flaw, or a different kind of flaw than the passage does.

It’s also important to note that these questions tend to require a lot of time, just like questions that ask you to match the technique, method, or pattern of reasoning. Be strategic about how much time you spend on these, don’t be afraid to skip them and come back, and take shortcuts wherever you can.

Identify the flaw in the passage’s argument

• If you can spot a common flaw, it’ll make it easier for you to find a matching choice, but you won’t always find a common flaw. Often, it's helpful to break the argument into its conclusion and evidence in order to spot the flaw.

Diagram if needed

• In match the flaw questions, you can often diagram the passage’s argument, particularly if you see repeating terms that relate to each other. For example: “Either X or Y will happen. Since X is unlikely to happen, Y will definitely happen.”

Eliminate/test choices one at a time

• Since a specific prediction isn’t possible for these question types, test each choice (diagramming where applicable) to find the argument that exhibits the same flaw as the stimulus does.
• One way to begin is to eliminate a choice as soon as its conclusion type doesn't match the argument's conclusion type, so that you don’t have to read the entire argument. If the type of conclusion is very different than the original argument’s conclusion, it’s not likely to exhibit the same flaw. Additionally, if you see that a choice is not flawed to begin with, then you can rule that choice out as well.

##How do we match a flaw in an argument to a flaw in a choice?

You can think of Match a Flaw questions as nearly identical to Match the Structure questions, but with the added information that the argument in the passage is flawed (and therefore, the argument in the answer will be as well). They can sometimes be long and/or time-consuming, so some students like to save them for last or skip them entirely.

###What do Match a Flaw questions look like?

As with Match the Structure questions, you’ll see:

• A flawed argument in the passage, and
• Arguments in each of the choices—sometimes long ones!

The wording of the questions will be similar to the following:

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its flawed reasoning to the argument above?

The pattern of questionable reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

###Example

Paleomycologists, scientists who study ancient forms of fungi, are invariably acquainted with the scholarly publications of all other paleomycologists. Professor Mansour is acquainted with the scholarly publications of Professor DeAngelis, who is a paleomycologist. Therefore, Professor Mansour must also be a paleomycologist.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments?

(A) When a flight on Global Airlines is delayed, all connecting Global Airlines flights are also delayed so that the passengers can make their connections. Since Frieda's connecting flight on Global was delayed, her first flight must have also been a delayed Global Airlines flight.

(B) Any time that one of Global Airlines' local ticket agents misses a shift, the other agents on that shift need to work harder than usual. Since none of Global's local ticket agents missed a shift last week, the airline's local ticket agents did not have to work harder than usual last week.

(C) Any time the price of fuel decreases, Global Airlines' expenses decrease and its income is unaffected. The price of fuel decreased several times last year. Therefore, Global Airlines must have made a profit last year.

(D) All employees of Global Airlines can participate in its retirement plan after they have been with the company a year or more. Gavin has been with Global Airlines for three years. We can therefore be sure that he participates in Global's retirement plan.

(E) Whenever a competitor of Global Airlines reduces its fares, Global must follow suit or lose passengers. Global carried more passengers last year than it did the year before. Therefore, Global must have reduced its fares last year to match reductions in its competitors' fares.

###How might we tackle this question?

✓ Identify a flaw in the passage’s argument.

If you can quickly spot a classic flaw, it’ll make it easier for you to find a matching choice, but that isn’t always possible. A great first step is to break the argument into its conclusion and evidence to help you spot flawed reasoning.

Conclusion

• Professor Mansour must be a paleomycologist

because

Support

• Paleomycologists are invariably acquainted with the scholarly publications of all other paleomycologists, [and]
• Professor Mansour is acquainted with the scholarly publications of Professor DeAngelis, who is a paleomycologist.

✓ Diagram if needed.

In Match the Flaw questions, you can often diagram the passage’s argument, particularly if you see repeating terms that relate to each other. In our example, we do see such repeating terms, which we'll indicate with an initial:

• X (Mansour) must be a Y (paleomycologist)

because

• All Ys are Z (acquainted with the scholarship publications of all other paleomycologists) and
• X is A (acquainted with the scholarly publications of one paleomycologist).

You may be able to spot the flaw from this! If you didn't, let's move to the next tip.

✓ Look for common flaw categories.

For details on flaws that you may see most often on the LSAT, you can consult one of our favorite articles as a reference: Types of Flaws.

We noticed the repetition of the terms “acquainted with the scholarly publications” and “is a paleomycologist.” We also saw that the evidence is all about the relationships of different terms: X, Y, Z, A. Finally, we see definite language such as “invariably”. All of these are clues that the argument is a conditional one. So, we should see if the arguer might be confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.

We cannot conclude that Professor Mansour must be a paleomycologist, just from Mansour being acquainted with the scholarly publications of one other paleomycologist. Furthermore, even if Mansour were acquainted with the scholarly publications of all other paleomycologists, that still wouldn’t be enough to conclude that Mansour is a paleomycologist. That’s because all paleomycologists know the work of all other paleomycologists, but that doesn’t exclude non-paleomycologists from also knowing the work of all paleomycologists!

Let's put this into simpler terms—and also stop talking about paleomycologists for a moment!

Here's another example: Just because all people who are accepted to law school have written a personal statement, we can't conclude that anyone who has written a personal statement will definitely get into law school!

So, this example about Professor Mansour does indeed exhibit a classic flaw of necessary/sufficient confusion.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

Being acquainted with the scholarship is a necessary condition of being a paleomycologist, not a sufficient one. All paleomycologists are acquainted, but not everyone who’s acquainted is necessarily a paleomycologist.

So, our prediction can be:

• The arguer takes something that’s supposed to be necessary and treats it like it’s sufficient. Lots of people could be acquainted with paleomycologists’ publications without being paleomycologists themselves.

Note: Not every flaw will fit into a category. If you encounter an argument that doesn’t feature any classic LSAT flaws, then characterize its logical gap in your own words. Try to use language that’s general enough that you can see how it might apply to a variety of arguments, and simple enough that you can really understand it.

✓ Eliminate/test the choices

When it’s time to analyze the choices, efficiency should be a top priority.

• Pay extra attention to conclusions. If a choice’s conclusion is very different from the original argument’s conclusion, it’s not likely to have the same flaw.
• Look for clues. If you’re looking for a flaw that has clues associated with it (such as a causal relationship), scan for those typical terms and structures.

More info on flaw types

[[☃ explanation 1]]

[[☃ explanation 2]]

[[☃ explanation 3]]

[[☃ explanation 4]]

[[☃ explanation 5]]

###Summary

✔ Identify the flaw in the passage’s argument
✔ Diagram if needed
✔ Look for common flaw categories
✔ Eliminate/test choices

###Common Incorrect Choices

Some incorrect choices for Match a Flaw questions present arguments that aren’t flawed at all. Most wrong choices do present flawed arguments, but the reasoning errors in those arguments are different from the one in the reference argument.

###Your turn

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Some final notes about matching flaws

• Practice Identify a Flaw questions first: If you struggle with Match a Flaw questions, try practicing Identify a Flaw questions until can more easily recognize the logical gaps in LSAT arguments.
• Consider skipping Many students find that Match a Flaw questions take longer to tackle than other question types. Because of that, many students strategically skip Match a Flaw questions entirely, or leave them until last. Remember never to leave questions blank though – there’s no penalty for guessing!
• You can write on your test booklet! Don’t be afraid to diagram directly on top of the passage in your test booklet. Some students like to draw an “X” right on top of the repeating terms and a “Y” on top of a different set of repeating terms (for example).

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to find an assumption required by the argument

This question asks you to identify the claim that must be true or is required in order for the argument to work. In other words, there is a silent, unspoken piece of support that the arguer is taking for granted to be true, and your job is to explicitly identify what that piece is. A good way to think of necessary assumptions is: if that statement were to be false, the argument’s reasoning would be undermined.

Example: Water is necessary to survival.

How do we know? Because if we took water away, we wouldn’t survive. The same is true for an assumption that’s necessary to an argument.

###Common wrong choice types

• Too strong: When a choice is too strong, you’ll want to ask yourself, “Does this statement really have to be true, to the degree that’s expressed here, in order for the argument to hold? Or would a lesser version of this statement still work?”

• Irrelevant: When a choice is irrelevant to the argument, you’ll want to ask yourself, “Does this even matter to the argument, or is it just something that’s ‘nice to know’ or ‘confusing because it’s irrelevant’?”

• Detrimental: Ask yourself, “Does the argument actually depend on this statement, or is it actually worse off in light of this statement?”

It’s best to make a prediction after you analyze the stimulus, since it’s easy to get lost in the choices otherwise. You won’t always be able to, but it’s a good idea to practice predicting until it becomes easier.

###Some helpful practices

✓ Identify the conclusion and support. Make sure to separate the conclusion from the support—this will make the gap in the argument more visible to you. It can also be helpful to phrase the argument’s structure to yourself as, “The arguer believes [conclusion], because [support]” in order to detect any leaps in logic or scope.

✓ Find a gap, if there is one. Is there a gap in scope between the support and the conclusion? Does the topic shift in a meaningful way? If so, then that gap needs to be connected by the assumption.

✓ Find an overlooked possibility, if there is one. Is there something that the arguer might be missing? Some kind of possibility that’s not been accounted for? If so, then that possibility must be accounted for by the assumption.

✓ Match a choice to your prediction. If you’ve predicted one possible necessary assumption, find the choice that matches your prediction. Be careful not to get distracted along the way. Note that it's sometimes more challenging to identify a prediction for a necessary assumption than it is for other question types, so don't feel discouraged if you can't find a prediction.

✓ Eliminate strategically. If you weren’t able to make a prediction, look to eliminate choices by testing them against your knowledge of common wrong choices—are the strongly-worded choices too strongly-worded? Which choices aren’t even relevant to the argument?

✓ Negate. If needed, test choices by negating them. If negating the truth of a choice causes the argument to be undermined, then that’s the answer. If negating the truth of a choice causes the argument to be strengthened or be unaffected, then that choice is incorrect.

##How do we identify a necessary assumption?

Necessary assumption questions ask you to determine what has to be true—but was never explicitly stated—in order for an argument to work. Stated differently, if a necessary assumption were discovered to be false, the argument would fall apart—the conclusion would not follow logically from its premises.

How do we know that fuel is necessary for a rocket to be launched? Because if the rocket didn't have fuel, it couldn't be launched.

Therefore, if we conclude that the rocket will be launched on schedule, one "necessary assumption" would be that the rocket will be properly fueled in time—even if that is not stated as one of the premises for the argument.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

###What do necessary assumption questions look like?

Necessary assumption questions ask you to identify a choice that has to be true in order for the reasoning of the argument to follow logically:

The argument relies on assuming which one of the following?

The argument depends on the assumption that

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

###Mind the gap

Necessary assumption questions usually involve arguments that have something—or several things—missing. There's at least one significant gap.

When there’s a gap in an argument (in other words, a missing link between support and conclusion) that argument is assuming that something is true without stating it. In other words, it’s an assumption.

Let's look at an example together.

###Example

Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers. However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. Although students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller, education suffers when teachers are underqualified. Therefore, reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the educator's argument?

(A) Class sizes in the school district should be reduced only if doing so would improve overall student achievement.

(B) At least some qualified teachers in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in their classes if class sizes were reduced.

(C) Students place a greater value on having qualified teachers than on having smaller classes.

(D) Hiring more teachers would not improve the achievement of any students in the school district if most or all of the teachers hired were underqualified.

(E) Qualified teachers could not be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator's region to take teaching jobs.

✓ Identify the conclusion and support.

As you approach many types of Logical Reasoning questions on the LSAT, you'll set yourself up for success if you separate the conclusion from the support. This is very helpful for Necessary Assumption questions.

Conclusion: Reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement

because

Support

• Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers.

• However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region.
• Students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller
• But education suffers when teachers are underqualified.

✓ Find a gap or overlooked possibility, if there is one.

Our next step is to figure out what’s missing. There's likely a missing link between the support and conclusion—or there might be several. If you don’t see any, try attempting to rebut the argument to find possibilities that the argument might have overlooked—that may allow you to detect the gap in the argument.

The conclusion in our example states that reducing class sizes probably won’t produce a net benefit. The evidence identifies a benefit and a drawback:

Benefit: Smaller classes provide more individualized instruction.

Drawback: Smaller classes mean more, and therefore less qualified, teachers.

Let's suppose we can't see the gap right away. We can investigate any gaps by trying to attack the argument:

• Why do the teachers have to be less qualified, just because there's a shortage of qualified teachers in the region? Can't the district find qualified teachers elsewhere?
• If the teachers do have to be less qualified, what about other benefits to smaller classes? Isn't it possible that the benefits of smaller classes outweigh the drawbacks of less qualified teachers?

Since we came up with two ways to attack the argument, the argument—in order to work—must be assuming:

• The district can't find qualified teachers elsewhere.
• The benefits of smaller classes don't outweigh the drawbacks of less qualified teachers.

It's possible that there are additional necessary assumptions to this argument, but these are the two that seem to stand out the most quickly.

Top tip: Overlooked possibilities are just the opposite of a necessary assumption. If you determine that the arguer is overlooking the possibility that the district could find qualified teachers outside the region, then the corresponding necessary assumption is that the district can't find qualified teachers outside the region. Because if we learned that the district could bring in qualified teachers from outside the region, the argument would fall apart!

✓ Match a choice to your prediction if possible. Otherwise, test each choice.

If you've made a strong prediction, you may be able to scan and locate the match for it very quickly. That's the best-case scenario!

If you couldn't make a strong prediction, you can evaluate each choice by asking if that choice's claim has to be true in order for the argument to hold together.

It’s great if you can make a prediction after you analyze the stimulus, since it’s easy to get lost in the choices if you have no idea what you're looking for. You won’t always be able to make a strong prediction, but it’s a good idea to practice predicting until it becomes easier.

Try evaluating each of our example's choices, and then check your evaluation:

[[☃ explanation 1]]

[[☃ explanation 2]]

[[☃ explanation 3]]

[[☃ explanation 4]]

[[☃ explanation 5]]

✓ Test choices by negating.

This strategy is somewhat time-consuming, and you definitely don't have time to test each choice in this way, so it tends to be most helpful for situations in which:

• You're fairly certain you have the answer but you want to double-check, and you have the time to do so.
• You've eliminated down to two choices and are feeling stuck, and you have the time to test them by negating.

How it works: A necessary assumption has to be true in order for an argument to work. Therefore, an argument will be be severely undermined if a necessary assumption is deemed to be false. This points to a useful test:

To determine whether a choice is a necessary assumption, suppose that the choice were false:

• If the argument falls apart when you do so—that is, the conclusion no longer follows logically from the support—then that choice is the answer.
• If the argument is unaffected or strengthened, then the choice isn't a necessary assumption.

Why it works: If you take away something that's necessary, then you encounter failure.

• A personal statement is necessary to complete a law school application. If you take away the personal statement, then the law school application fails to be completed.
• Sunlight is necessary for Plant X to survive. So if you take away the sunlight, Plant X will die.

On the flip side, if you take away something that's not necessary, then you won't encounter automatic failure.

• Prada shoes are not necessary to my survival. So if you take my Prada shoes away, I might be sad, but I wouldn't die.

• Water is necessary to survival, but triple-filtered water from the springs in a tucked-away Himalayan mountain is not necessary to survival. So if you take away that fancy water, I won't die (as long as you give me some kind of less-fancy water to replace it).

In our example question, the argument was essentially that reducing class sizes won't improve student achievement, because it would require more teachers, and there's already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region.

Let's look at just three of the choices to demonstrate the negation test:

(B) At least some qualified teachers in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in their classes if class sizes were reduced.

Negation: No qualified teachers in the school district would be able to improve the overall achievement of students in their classes if class sizes were reduced.

Result: This would actually support the argument, which is skeptical about how beneficial smaller classes would be. That means that in its original form, this choice weakens the argument, which is the opposite of being a necessary assumption.

(C) Students place [[☃ definition 1]] on having qualified teachers than on having smaller classes.

Negation: Students don’t place a greater value on having qualified teachers than on having smaller classes.

Result: This would not affect the argument, which doesn't involve students’ value judgments. Since the argument is unaffected when we negate this statement, then it must not be necessary in its original form.

(E) Qualified teachers could not be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator's region to take teaching jobs.

Negation: Qualified teachers could be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator’s region to take teaching jobs.

Result: This seriously weakens the argument. When we negate (E), qualified teachers can simply be recruited from other areas. Because it makes irrelevant the support that the conclusion was balancing on, negating this assumption makes the argument fall apart. Therefore, in its original form this choice is necessary to the argument.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

###Summary

✓ Identify the conclusion and support.
✓ Find a gap or overlooked possibility, if there is one.
✓ Match a choice to your prediction or eliminate strategically.
✓ Negate a choice if necessary.

###Common wrong choice types

• Too strong: When a choice is too strong, you’ll want to ask , “Does this statement really have to be true, to the degree that’s expressed here, in order for the argument to hold? Or is it going too far in its precision or strength?” Example: If your prediction is, "Some of the diseases must be curable", a choice that's too strong might state, "Most of the diseases must be curable."
• Irrelevant: When a choice is irrelevant to the argument, you’ll want to ask yourself, “Does this even matter to the argument, or is it just something that’s ‘nice to know’ or ‘surprising because it’s not mentioned or important to the argument'?"
• Weakening: This choice will actually hurt the argument instead of help it to survive.
• Strengthening: This choice will help the conclusion follow from its evidence, but it doesn't have to be true in order for the argument to work. Be careful—a strengthener isn't the same thing as a necessary assumption, even though the argument is somewhat "improved" in both cases!

###Your turn

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Some final thoughts on Necessary Assumptions

• Prefer weak choices. If you are running short on time, and you've eliminated down to a choice featuring strong language (all, none, never) and a choice featuring weak language (some, sometimes, occasionally), lean towards the choice with the weaker language—necessary assumptions are more often characterized by weaker statements than sufficient assumptions are.
• Practice analyzing arguments for their conclusion and evidence. This could very well be a skill that you practice all the way up until Test Day, since it's so fundamental to many question types beyond Necessary Assumptions.
• Be patient. Because necessary assumptions are by definition implicit (never mentioned in the argument), it can take some time to get adept at finding them. Feel free to return to this article for a refresher if you find yourself struggling in the future.
• Look for the potential "gap" in the argument. If you see an idea that appears in the conclusion but was never mentioned in the evidence, that's a great place to start—it's likely that that idea is part of the assumption.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to identify a sufficient assumption

This question asks you to identify a sufficient assumption—that is, an assumption that, if added to the argument, would make it logically valid. We’re looking for something that would fix all of an argument’s problems, bridging the gap between what the support justifies and what the conclusion claims.

Look out for common wrong choice types:

• Not enough: Statements that do help, but not enough to guarantee the conclusion following from its support.

• Necessary assumptions: Assumptions that are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the result.

• Not relevant: Information that’s outside of the argument's scope, and thus unable to connect the support to its conclusion.

• Backwards: A statement that establishes, "Because [passage's conclusion], therefore [passage's evidence]." Example: My fish is swimming, so my fish must be alive. A backwards choice would say something like, "All beings that are alive must be swimming" instead of, "All beings that are swimming must be alive."

It’s best to make a prediction on Sufficient Assumption questions, to save time in the choices and make the tempting choices look less tempting.

✓ Identify the conclusion and support. Make sure to separate the conclusion from the support—this will make the gap in the argument more visible to you. It can also be helpful to phrase the argument’s structure to yourself as, “The arguer believes [conclusion], because [support]” in order to detect any leaps in logic or scope.

✓ Identify any gaps in the argument. Is there a gap in scope between the support and the conclusion? Does the topic shift in a meaningful way? If so, then connecting the topic in the support and the topic in the conclusion in the correct logical relationship will allow the conclusion to follow from its support.

✓ Diagram if necessary. Is there conditional logic in the argument? If so, it can be very helpful to diagram that logic.

✓ Match a choice to your prediction. Once you’ve made a prediction of the sufficient assumption, find the choice that matches your prediction.

✓ Eliminate strategically. If you weren’t able to make a prediction, look to eliminate choices by testing them against your knowledge of common wrong choices—which choices aren’t even relevant to the argument? Do any of them move from the conclusion to the evidence, instead of from the evidence to the conclusion?

✓ Test by affirming unless you are crunched for time. Test the choice you chose by affirming: when you “add” your choice to the passage’s original support, it should create an ironclad journey from the support to the passage’s conclusion.

##Welcome to sufficient assumptions!

Some questions in the Logical Reasoning section ask you to identify a sufficient assumption—that is, an assumption that would guarantee that a conclusion follows logically from the given support.

###How do we recognize Sufficient Assumption questions?

These questions ask you to identify assumptions that would tie arguments together.

Examples

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the argument to be properly inferred?

The conclusion follows logically from the premises if which one of the following is assumed?

We’re looking for something that would seamlessly connect an argument’s support to its conclusion. For example, let’s say that an argument is structured in the following way:

Conclusion: The upcoming conference will definitely be profitable

because

Support: If at least 50 people register for a conference, that conference is profitable.

• What happens if we assume that 49 people registered for the upcoming conference? That doesn’t guarantee that the conference will be profitable.
• What happens if we assume that 55 people registered for the upcoming conference? That does guarantee that the conference will be profitable.
• Is it too strong of an assumption if we assume that four billion people registered for the upcoming conference? No—that’s perfectly acceptable!

[[☃ explanation 1]]

Let’s work through an actual example together.

###Example

Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

The conclusion of the activist's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) If all the members of the city council abstain in the vote on the proposal, the city's voters will definitely decide in favor of the proposal.

(B) The proposal should not be decided by the city's voters.

(C) No members of the city council will vote in favor of the proposal.

(D) If not every member of the city council abstains in the vote on the proposal, the matter will not be decided by the city's voters.

(E) If one member of the city council ought to vote against the proposal, the other members should abstain in the vote on the proposal.

You can take a similar approach on these questions as you do on Necessary Assumption, Strengthen/Weaken, and Flaw questions: focus on the gap between the conclusion and the support.

✓ Identify the conclusion and support.

We recommend that for Sufficient Assumption questions, you start by identifying the conclusion and the support—this often makes the gap more visible. It can also be helpful to phrase the argument’s structure as, “The arguer believes that [conclusion], because [support]” in order to detect any jumps in logic or topic.

Conclusion: At least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal

because

Support: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain, but if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters.

✓ Identify any gaps in the argument.

A good next step is to look for a gap between conclusion and support. Gaps are often present in Sufficient Assumption questions, since our task is to fill that gap in with a claim to cement the path from support to conclusion.

The arguer’s conclusion is that someone should vote no to the proposal. Why? Because the only alternative—everyone abstaining—would defer the decision to the voters.

What’s not stated explicitly, but is rather taken for granted? The arguer seems to be assuming that leaving the decision to the voters would be a bad thing. However, that isn’t demonstrated, so the argument is far from airtight.

✓ Diagram if necessary.

Sufficient Assumption questions often include a number of conditional statements. Sometimes, when they appear to link up, or they involve tricky operators like “unless” and “only”, consider diagramming them. While it takes time, it can be a safe and accurate way to home in on the missing relationship.

This argument’s conditionals don’t link, so a diagram may not be very helpful in this case.

✓ Match a choice to your prediction.

We identified a gap between “the voters would decide” in the support and “therefore we shouldn’t let the voters decide” (paraphrased) in the conclusion. A sufficient assumption will completely bridge this gap. Taken together with the support provided, it will enable the conclusion that at least one person should vote against the proposal (and thus not allow the voters to decide).

Top tip: Stronger is often better. It can be helpful to anticipate an answer that provides the missing relationship or information in a fairly strong way. Sufficient assumptions have to guarantee the truth of a conclusion, so it’s often the case that the more strongly they’re phrased, the better.

What would completely bridge the gap in question? The assumption that:

The council should try to avoid an outcome in which the city’s voter’s decide the proposal.

Top tip: The power of prediction. It’s generally easier to predict a sufficient assumption before looking at the choices than it is to predict a necessary assumption. The gap tends to be more visible to readers. So, it’s worth spending extra time on Sufficient Assumption questions to anticipate a specific answer—you can save a lot of time and mental energy on Test Day if you only have to find a match for your prediction, instead of slogging through each choice and giving it more benefit of the doubt than it deserves.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

✓ Eliminate strategically.

If you aren’t able to make a prediction—and that will happen sometimes!—don’t be alarmed. It’s time to try to cross out a few choices. You can increase your likelihood of getting the question right by process of elimination. Remember that there’s no penalty for wrong answers on the LSAT, so you should never leave any questions blank.

As a first pass, some students like to look for choices that are irrelevant.

Evaluate the wrong choices on your own, and then compare your evaluations to ours:

[[☃ explanation 1]]

✓ Test by affirming.

Remember that the answer to a Sufficient Assumption question—when added to the original argument—guarantees the conclusion will follow logically from the support. In other words, if the sufficient assumption is true, then the conclusion is the logical result of the passage’s support. Note that this isn’t the same as the conclusion being a true statement!

Conclusion: Earth is a bigger planet than Jupiter

because

Support: Earth has oceans.

A sufficient assumption here would be that any planet that has oceans is bigger than Jupiter. Do you see how you probably disagree with the actual truth of the conclusion and the actual truth of the sufficient assumption? That’s okay! Look what happens when we add the support and the assumption together:

• Earth has oceans.
• Any planet that has oceans is bigger than Jupiter.

What is the logical conclusion to this combination of facts? It must logically follow that Earth is bigger than Jupiter (even though that's not true in real life).

Top tip: Assume that each choice is true and see how it affects the argument. If you add a statement in a choice to the argument’s support and the conclusion becomes guaranteed, then you’ve found a sufficient assumption!

Note: Because of Test Day time constraints, this strategy is best employed in one of two scenarios:

• You’re pretty sure you’re looking at the answer, and you want to check it by affirmation.
• You’re stuck between two or three choices, and you’ll affirm both to see which of them guarantees the conclusion.

Let’s try it with one wrong choice from our example question as well as with the answer. Here’s the argument outline again:

Conclusion: At least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal

because

Support: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain, but if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters.

(C) No members of the city council will vote in favor of the proposal.

• No members of the city council will vote in favor of the proposal.
• Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain, but if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters.

When we combine the support with (A)’s proposed assumption, we cannot draw the same conclusion as the arguer does. The argument is about what members should do, not what they actually do in practice.

(B) The proposal should not be decided by the city's voters.

• Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain, but if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters.
• The proposal should not be decided by the city’s voters.

The deduction here is that all of the members shouldn’t abstain. Since that matches the passage’s conclusion, then (B) is a sufficient assumption.

###Summary

✓ Identify the conclusion and support.
✓ Identify any gaps in the argument.
✓ Diagram if necessary.
✓ Match a choice to your prediction.
✓ Eliminate strategically.
✓ Test by affirming if you have time.

###Common Incorrect Choices

• Not enough: Statements that do help, but not enough to guarantee the conclusion following from its support.
• Necessary assumptions: Assumptions that are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the result.
• Not relevant: Information that’s outside of the argument's scope, and thus unable to connect the support to its conclusion.
• Backwards: Information that establishes a relationship from the conclusion to the support, instead of from the support to the conclusion.

###Your turn

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Some final thoughts on Sufficient Assumptions

• Note any new info in the conclusion. When the conclusion introduces an important concept that isn’t addressed by the evidence, there’s a good chance the [[☃ definition 1]] will appear in the answer—otherwise, the conclusion and evidence would risk not being bridged.
• Don’t be scared of strong language in the answer “Overkill” is okay as a sufficient assumption, as long as the assumption is “good enough to get to the conclusion.” In everyday terms, if a pizza costs $20, then $100 would be sufficient (even though it’s more than enough), but it wouldn’t be necessary.
• Short on time? Try to eliminate choices, then guess If a question seems too daunting to tackle in the allotted time, consider taking 30-60 seconds to try to eliminate any classic wrong choice types for this question type (irrelevant, too weak, backwards), and any choices that don’t contain key concepts from the conclusion and the evidence.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to identify info that would strengthen or weaken an argument

This question asks you to identify a strengthener or weakener—information that, if added to the support, would make the conclusion more likely or less likely to be true. A strengthener or weakener won’t prove or disprove a conclusion beyond a shadow of a doubt—it’ll just improve or worsen the likelihood of the conclusion to follow from its support.

The choices in strengthen and weaken questions will always either strengthen the argument, weaken the argument, or not affect the argument. Therefore, if you're tackling a weaken question (for example), the wrong choices will either strengthen the argument or will not affect the argument.

A specific prediction is usually not recommended, since there are many different ways to strengthen or weaken a given argument. Therefore, it’s best to understand the pieces of the argument, and then assess the impact that each choice has when added to the argument.

###Strategies

✓ Identify the conclusion and support: Make sure to separate the conclusion from the support—this will make the gap in the argument more visible to you. It can also be helpful to phrase the argument’s structure to yourself as, “The arguer believes [conclusion], because [support]” in order to detect any leaps in logic or scope.

✓ Identify any gaps in the argument: Is there a gap in scope between the support and the conclusion? Does the topic shift in a meaningful way? If so, then connecting the topic in the support and the topic in the conclusion in a logical way might strengthen the argument. In the same manner, making the topic in the support less related/connected to the topic in the conclusion may weaken the argument.

✓ Diagram if necessary: Is there conditional logic in the argument? If so, it can be very helpful to sketch a diagram.

✓ Identify any common patterns: If the argument's conclusion is causal in nature (X caused Y), a common weakener might be to provide an alternate cause (actually, Z caused Y). Or if the argument's support consists of a study, a strengthener might be an affirmation that the study was appropriately executed and relevant. These are just a few examples of common patterns you may see on the LSAT. For a closer look at these patterns, you may find it helpful to work through our article about Types of Flaws.

✓ Test each choice one at a time: Test the choice you picked by affirming: when you “add” your choice to the passage’s original support, it should improve or worsen the likelihood of the conclusion being true, based on the support provided.

##How do we identify information that would strengthen or weaken an argument?

Strengthen and Weaken questions ask you to find info that would make the conclusion of an argument more or less likely to be true, based on the evidence that's provided. A strengthener or weakener won’t necessarily prove or disprove an argument beyond a shadow of a doubt—it’ll just increase or decrease the likelihood that the conclusion follows from its support.

###How do we identify these questions?

Strengthen:

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the ecologist’s reasoning?

Weaken:

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the argument?

Which one of the following represents the strongest counter to Ana’s argument?

Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the reasoning above?

Let’s work through an example together!

###Example

In its coverage of a controversy regarding a proposal to build a new freeway, a television news program showed interviews with several people who would be affected by the proposed freeway. Of the interviews shown, those conducted with people against the new freeway outnumbered those conducted with people for it two to one. The television program is therefore biased against the proposed freeway.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Most of the people who watched the program were aware of the freeway controversy beforehand.

(B) Most viewers of television news programs do not expect those programs to be completely free of bias.

(C) In the interviews, the people against the new freeway expressed their opinions with more emotion than the people for the freeway did.

(D) Before the program aired, over twice as many people were against building the freeway than were in favor of it.

(E) The business interests of the television station that produced the program would be harmed by the construction of a new freeway.

###How might we approach this question?

✓ Identify the argument’s conclusion and support.

It’s usually helpful to separate the arguer’s conclusion (which in this case is essentially an opinion) from the arguer’s evidence (which is information that we accept as true). That way, you can detect any important gaps that need to be addressed.

Conclusion: The television program is biased against the proposed freeway [because]

Support:

• In its coverage of a controversy regarding a proposal to build a new freeway, a television news program showed interviews with several people who would be affected by the proposed freeway, [and]
• Of the interviews shown, those conducted with people against the new freeway outnumbered those conducted with people for it two to one.

✓ Identify gaps in the argument.

How does the evidence connect to the conclusion? In our example question, the reason the arguer thinks that the television program is biased against the proposed freeway is that the program’s interviews showed twice as many interviews with people against the proposal as people supporting the proposal.

So, we could identify the gap as being between:

• The higher number of broadcast interviews against the proposal, and
• The television program’s bias against the proposal.

In other words, the arguer believes that the first thing (# of broadcast interviews for and against) proves the second thing (bias against proposal).

✓ Diagram if necessary.

Sometimes it’s helpful to draw a quick sketch of the action. If there is conditional logic (“if X then Y”), causal relationships that can be linked together, or any numbers and figures, seeing the info written down can help you organize your thoughts.

This example may not require a diagram, but it might help you to jot down a shorthand of the argument’s gap:

[[☃ image 2]]

✓ Identify any common patterns.

In our example, there isn’t a classic pattern that’s immediately visible, but it’ll save you time on Test Day if you keep an eye out for any of the following:

• Weaken a causal relationship (X caused Y): Show that there could be an alternate cause (Z caused Y).
• Weaken a conclusion that’s based on a sample: Show that the sample isn’t big enough or relevant enough.
• Strengthen a causal relationship (X caused Y): Show that a potential alternate cause isn’t actually the cause.
• Strengthen an argument with different topics in the evidence and conclusion: Show that the topic in the evidence is related to the topic in the conclusion.

✓ Test each choice one at a time.

For certain types of Logical Reasoning questions, we recommend trying to make a specific answer prediction before heading to the choices. For Strengthen and Weaken questions, however, predictions aren’t recommended.

Why not? There’s usually a variety of possible strengtheners or weakeners for any given argument, and it’s generally not a productive use of your limited time on Test Day to brainstorm about all the various possibilities.

Additionally, it can be all too easy to forget whether you’re looking for a strengthener or a weakener, so it’s helpful to simply remind yourself of the task before you start to evaluate the choices.

In this argument, for example:

”I’m looking for a choice that shows that the higher number of broadcast interviews against the proposal doesn’t indicate that the television program is biased against the proposal

or

”I’m looking for information that helps show that the television program isn’t as biased as it initially looked, even though the ratio of interviewees was 2:1.”

Top tip: Add the choice to the argument. As you evaluate each choice, imagine that you’re adding the choice’s information to the argument. Which way does the argument move? There are only three things a choice could do:

• strengthen the argument
• weaken the argument
• have no effect on the argument

Top tip: Don't overdo it! "Strengthen" doesn’t mean prove, and "weaken" doesn’t mean disprove. You don’t need to destroy an argument in order to weaken it; it's good enough to just make the conclusion less likely to follow from its evidence.

Go ahead and evaluate each choice, then click on the corresponding explanations below to check your reasoning.

[[☃ explanation 1]]
[[☃ explanation 2]]
[[☃ explanation 3]]
[[☃ explanation 4]]
[[☃ explanation 5]]

###Summary

✓ Identify the argument’s conclusion and support.
✓ Identify gaps in the argument.
✓ Diagram if you find it helpful!
✓ Identify any common patterns.
✓ Test each choice.

###Your turn!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

[[☃ graded-group 2]]

###Some final thoughts on strengthen and weaken questions

• Pay attention to degree. Strengtheners and weakeners will vary in degree; some will strengthen or weaken dramatically, while others will strengthen or weaken more subtly.
• Add the choice to the argument. It helps many students to imagine that they’re adding a choice to the passage itself, so that they can ask, “Which way did the argument move after I added that information? Did it even move at all?”
• Sum up the task. While we can make very specific predictions for question types such as Flaw, Assumption, and Technique (to name a few), it’s better to generate only a general prediction for Strengthen and Weaken questions. That’s because there are often many ways that a given argument could be strengthened or weakened. You can make a general prediction by saying something like, “I’m looking for information that makes it more/less likely that [conclusion], based on the given evidence that [evidence].”
• “No effect” choices can be right on EXCEPT questions. For Strengthen EXCEPT questions, the answer will either weaken or have no effect. For Weaken EXCEPT questions, the answer will either strengthen or have no effect. Students often overlook the possibility that a “no effect” choice also qualifies as the answer, so keep that in mind when faced with a Strengthen/Weaken EXCEPT question.

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to identify info that would be useful to know to evaluate an argument

In this question, you’re asked what information would be most or least useful in evaluating the argument. These are similar to strengthen and weaken questions, in that you’ll identify what information would make the argument better or worse. It can be much easier to make a prediction on these question types if you can detect the gaps in the reasoning.

##Strategies

✓ Identify the conclusion and support: Make sure to separate the conclusion from the support—this will make the gap in the argument more visible to you. It can also be helpful to phrase the argument’s structure to yourself as, “The arguer believes [conclusion], because [support]” in order to detect any leaps in logic or scope.

✓ Look for gaps: Is there specific information that you wish you had, so that you could either side or disagree with the arguer? If so, that’s your prediction!

✓ Look for common patterns: For example, if the conclusion is causal, consider alternative theories or additional support. Keep common argument structures and common flaws in mind.

• Types of Flaws
• Types of Evidence
• Types of Conclusions

✓ Test the choices by turning them into a question: Try phrasing each choice as a yes/no question that needs to be answered, and then assess how "yes" and "no" answers (or other opposite answers, if the choices aren't in a helpful yes/no form) would affect the argument. Would a "yes" answer strengthen the argument and a "no" answer weaken the argument, for example? If so, then you have the correct choice!

##How do you know what's useful to know?

Questions that fall into the "Identify what's helpful to know" category ask you to identify which choice’s information would help you evaluate the argument—in other words, what information, if you had it, would either strengthen or weaken the argument.

When we make decisions in everyday life, we use information in a similar way to come to a decision. If we wanted to evaluate a decision to switch jobs, it’s probably not enough to just say, “I’m going to quit my job and accept this new one, because the new job’s office is 3% closer than the old job’s office.” We need more information! For example, many people would want to compare salaries, cultures, benefits, company mission, growth opportunities.

###How do we recognize this question type?

Look for questions that ask you for what would be helpful or useful:

Which one of the following would be most helpful to know in order to evaluate Dave’s theory?

It would be most useful to know which of the following in evaluating the politician’s argument?

Information about which one of the following would be LEAST useful in evaluating the argument?

Top tip: Look out for LEAST helpful questions. In the last example above, the question is essentially an “EXCEPT” question. You can rephrase it as, “Each of the following would be useful in evaluating the argument EXCEPT”—so, the four wrong choices will be useful, and the answer will not help us evaluate the argument at all.

Now let’s work through an example together, and we’ll offer some approaches that may help you.

###Example

Millions of homes are now using low-energy lighting, but millions more have still to make the switch, a fact that the government and the home lighting industry are eager to change. Although low-wattage bulbs cost more per bulb than normal bulbs, their advantages to the homeowner are enormous, and therefore everyone should use low-wattage bulbs.

Information about which one of the following would be LEAST useful in evaluating the argument?

(A) the actual cost of burning low-wattage bulbs compared to that of burning normal bulbs

(B) the profits the home lighting industry expects to make from sales of low-wattage bulbs

(C) the specific cost of a low-wattage bulb compared with that of a normal bulb

(D) the opinion of current users of low-wattage bulbs as to their effectiveness

(E) the average life of a low-wattage bulb compared with that of a normal bulb

###How might we approach this question type?

✓ Identify the conclusion and support
This may help you detect any gaps in the arguer’s journey from support to conclusion.

Conclusion

• Everyone should use low-wattage bulbs

because

Support

• Low-wattage bulbs cost more per bulb than normal bulbs, [but]
• Their advantages to the homeowner are enormous.

Essentially, the arguer is in favor of low-wattage bulbs, because even though there’s one drawback (cost per bulb), they bring enormous advantages to the homeowner.

[[☃ explanation 1]]

✓ Look for gaps
Does anything immediately feel like it’s “missing” from the argument? For example, the arguer does provide a drawback in cost, but doesn’t directly resolve that drawback. Cost could be an important factor to consider, but the only information the arguer provides to attempt to offset the higher cost is a vague reference to enormous advantages.

Top tip: Don’t panic! There could be several items missing from an argument, so don’t panic if you predict an answer that feels really strong but it’s not among the choices.

✓ Look for common patterns
Some patterns are more frequently seen on the LSAT than others. That doesn’t mean that the LSAT is limited to common patterns. But in your practice, you may become accustomed to seeing arguments such as:

• “X and Y happened at the same time; therefore, X must have caused Y.”

• ”X has always happened in the past, so it’s sure to happen again this year.”

• “The only possible results are X, Y, or Z. X is unlikely and Y is impossible, so Z is going to be the result.”

These are just a few common patterns you may see. In our example, we see the common pattern of weighing advantages and disadvantages, but we aren’t given any indication of what the advantages are and whether they outweigh the disadvantage of higher cost. We don’t even know if the higher cost is significant enough to warrant consideration. So this kind of thinking is a good start in considering what we’re missing.

✓ Test the choices by turning them into a question
You can try phrasing each choice as a question that needs to be answered, and then consider how opposite results would affect the argument. If one result would strengthen or weaken the argument and the opposite result would affect the argument in an opposite way as the first result, then the chances are very good that we have our answer.

However, don’t forget that this question is a LEAST useful question—that means that we’ll actually be eliminating choices that would help us evaluate the argument. This may feel a little abstract to you without practice, so click on the links below to try out each choice one at a time until you feel comfortable with this strategy.

[[☃ explanation 1]]
[[☃ explanation 2]]
[[☃ explanation 3]]
[[☃ explanation 4]]
[[☃ explanation 5]]

###Summary

✓ Identify the conclusion and support
✓ Look for gaps
✓ Look for common patterns
✓ Test the choices by turning them into a question

###Common wrong choice types

The most common incorrect choice is one that offers information that might seem relevant, but it’s only relevant if you add your own assumptions. It’s generally a warning sign if you have to work hard to add information in order to justify a choice.

###Try one on your own!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

• Most/least helpful questions are similar to strengthen/weaken questions, since you’re evaluating how certain information would affect an argument. Try to think in terms of “impact”, either positive or negative, as you add the information to the argument.
• Keep practicing to separate the conclusion from its support—it will help you detect gaps more easily!

##A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to identify info that would explain or resolve a situation

In this question, you’re asked what information would help **explain** or **resolve** a situation or discrepancy that’s presented in the stimulus. Usually, the situation will be somewhat puzzling, but the answer will be the information that sheds light on the situation, or provides a logical explanation of how that situation could exist.

Wrong choices will be information that either makes the situation even *more* puzzling, or ones that don’t help explain it at all because the information is irrelevant or without impact.

It’s usually best not to try to make a prediction for these questions, but rather assess the impact of each choice in helping the passage’s situation make sense.

**✓ Identify the situation in your own words:** There is usually no need to identify conclusion and support—the most important task is to understand what the situation is and why it may be perplexing.

**✓ Look for a contrast keyword:** There may be a contrast keyword such as “yet” or “however” in the passage—the statements on either side of that keyword will be the statements in conflict (if you're asked to resolve a conflict).

**✓ Phrase the situation as a question:** Often, it’s a good idea to formulate the situation in the form of a question, such as, “How could the population have grown if fewer people were having children at the time?”

**✓ Test each choice against the question you formulated:** Since there are too many possibilities to make a strong prediction, test each choice against the stimulus, by mentally adding the information to the stimulus and assessing the impact. If a choice provides information that sheds light on how the situation could have occurred, that’s the answer!

##Explain or Resolve questions

These questions present a puzzling situation in the passage and ask you to identify which choice gives you information that sheds light on that situation. For example, there might be two pieces of information that seem to conflict with each other. Or, there could be results that are unexpected. The answer will add information that helps the originally surprising situation make a bit more sense.

###How do we recognize Explain or Resolve questions?

Usually, these questions will be signaled when they ask you to “explain” or “resolve” or “account for” something. Some examples:

• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain how XXXX could have happened?

• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information above?

• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to account for the failure described above?

Let’s look at an Explain question together.

###Example

Populations of a shrimp species at eleven different Indonesian coral reefs show substantial genetic differences from one reef to another. This is surprising because the area's strong ocean currents probably carry baby shrimp between the different reefs, which would allow the populations to interbreed and become genetically indistinguishable.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the substantial genetic differences among the shrimp populations?

(A) The genetic differences between the shrimp populations are much less significant than those between shrimp and any other marine species.

(B) The individual shrimp within a given population at any given Indonesian coral reef differ from one another genetically, even though there is widespread interbreeding within any such population.

(C) Before breeding, shrimp of the species examined migrate back to the coral reef at which they were hatched.

(D) Most shrimp hatched at a given Indonesian coral reef are no longer present at that coral reef upon becoming old enough to breed.

(E) Ocean currents probably carry many of the baby shrimp hatched at a given Indonesian coral reef out into the open ocean rather than to another coral reef.

###How might we tackle this question?

✓ Identify the situation in your own words: Usually, there isn’t an argument in Explain or Resolve passages. Rather, you’ll find information that is either surprising or apparently contradictory in nature. If you can do a quick mental inventory of the facts you’re provided, it’s possible that the discrepancy or mystery will jump out at you right away.

In this question, we learn that

• Populations of a shrimp species at eleven different Indonesian coral reefs show substantial genetic differences from one reef to another, [and]
• This is surprising because the area's strong ocean currents probably carry baby shrimp between the different reefs, which would allow the populations to interbreed and become genetically indistinguishable.

To put this into our own words, we might phrase the situation like this:

• Among a bunch of reefs, the shrimp are genetically different from reef to another, but that’s surprising because the baby shrimp are probably getting carried to all the reefs by ocean currents, and that would let the shrimp interbreed and be genetically similar.

Can you see why this situation is surprising, from our simpler phrasing of the passage?

✓ Look for a contrast keyword: If you don’t immediately see any conflict in the situation, it could help to look for a contrast keyword (however, yet, but, nonetheless, etc.)—if you find one, then the information before the contrast keyword should be what conflicts with the information after the contrast keyword.

In this passage, our signal is the phrase, “This is surprising” because it indicates to us that something unexpected has happened. Therefore, we can recognize that the genetic differences are surprising because of the way baby shrimp get swept around the high seas, and that would allow the shrimp to interbreed and become the opposite of genetically different.

✓ Phrase the situation as a question: Often, it can help to formulate the situation in the form of a question before you evaluate any of the choices. The correct option should be able to answer the question.

Our question might be:

“Why are the shrimp from different reefs so genetically different when it appears that ocean currents would move them around and allow them to interbreed?”

✓ Test each choice as a response to the question you formulated: Since there are too many possibilities to make a strong prediction, test each choice against your question and assess the impact. If a choice provides information that sheds light on how the situation could have occurred, that’s the answer!

Give it a try:

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Summary

✓ Identify the situation in your own words.
✓ Look for a contrast keyword.
✓ Phrase the situation as a question.
✓ Test each choice as a response to the question you formulated.

###Common incorrect choices

• Not relevant: Many wrong choices for Explain and Resolve questions will offer information that has no bearing on the situation at hand. If you catch yourself reading the choice and thinking, “who cares?”, there’s a good chance the choice’s information isn’t relevant.
• Opposite effect: Some wrong choices will actually make the conflict worse, or make the situation more puzzling. Since these choices are relevant (but do the opposite of what you’re looking for), it’s a good idea to assess the impact of the choice to ensure you’re not choosing one with the opposite effect than the answer will have.

###Your turn

The next question is a Resolve question, and you should be able to see how similar it is to an Explain question. Give it a shot – and don’t forget to use our above suggestions!

[[☃ graded-group 1]]

###Takeaways

• Some students like to think about Explain or Resolve questions as a sort of mystery that needs solving, and the situation you’re given is missing a key piece.
• Don’t forget to formulate the conflict or situation as a question, and ask yourself when evaluating each choice whether that choice sheds light on the situation.
• It’s not usually recommended to make a prediction for these question types, since there could be any number of explanations or resolutions that work.