Lsat Logical Reasoning

Front 1

Sufficient Types: Questions to Ask

Back 1

1. What is the argument core? (is it a premise, intermediate conclusion, conclusion)?
2. Is there a term shift?
3. Does the answer choice make the conclusion 100% valid? Is the AC strong?
4. Is the answer completely within scope?
5. Can you directly relate the AC to the conclusion?

Front 2

Sufficient Types: Method

Back 2

1. Look for term shifts and unconnected terms in the conclusion
2. Strong answer choice, does more than necessary to justify

Front 3

Sufficient Types: Wrong Answer Characteristics

Back 3

1. Premise boosters
2. Restatement of conclusion
3. Opposite (weakens the argument)
4. Outside of scope
5. Logical reversal (converse, inverse)

Front 4

Necessary Types: Questions to Ask

Back 4

1. What is the argument core? Is it a premise, intermediate conclusion, or conclusion?
2. Is there a term shift?
3. Does the negation of the answer choice destroy the argument?
4. Is the answer choice weak?
5. Can you directly relate the answer choice to the conclusion?

Front 5

Necessary Types: Method

Back 5

1. Negation Test
2. Look for weak answer choices that do just enough to defend the conclusion or fill the gap
3. Ask whether the assumption can link premise to intermediate conclusion or the intermediate conclusion to the conclusion

Front 6

Necessary Types: Wrong Answer Characteristics

Back 6

1. Opposite answers

Front 7

Flaw Types: Questions to Ask

Back 7

1. What is the argument?
2. Is there a premise/conclusion mismatch?
3. What else needs to be considered in order to evaluate the conclusion?
4. Is there causation?
- Reverse cause and effect?
- Did something else cause both?
- Is there an alternate cause?
- Is it a coincidence?
5. Identify the flaw
6. Can you directly relate to the answer choice to the conclusion?

Front 8

Flaw Types: Method

Back 8

1. Find and express the assumption. Look at the general wording that the answer choices are using and use it to anticipate a correct answer choice.
2. Evaluate the conclusion by considering whether there is a premise/conclusion mismatch or information that would need to be known.
3. Make sure that the flaw expressed in the answer is actually committed and works to destroy the argument through the gap between premise and conclusion.
4. Keep a look out for any causation, probably a flaw. If there is causation, consider if 1) there is a premise/conclusion mismatch and 2) there are alternative modes of causation (reverse cause and effect, alternate cause, coincidence)

Front 9

Flaw Types: Tricks

Back 9

1. Volume of information
2. Need to reference background information to understand significance of premise & premise terms
3. Abstract language

Front 10

Strengthen & Weaken Types: Questions to Ask

Back 10

1. What is the argument core?
2. Is there causation?
- Reverse cause and effect
- Alternate cause
- Coincidence
- Does it strengthen/weaken any part of the causal
chain?
3. What is the flaw?
4. Can you directly relate the answer choice to the conclusion?
5. What bearing does the answer choice have on the conclusion? (none, unclear, opposite)

Front 11

Strengthen & Weaken Types: Method

Back 11

1. Find the flawed assumption
2. Pay close attention to how the AC affects the gap between the premise and conclusion, and its effect on the conclusion
3. AC are rarely easy to anticipate

Front 12

Strengthen & Weaken Types: Test-Maker Tricks

Back 12

1. Sometimes will only have a conclusion
2. Force you to evaluate a claim within a premise

Front 13

Strengthen & Weaken Types: Elimination Process

Back 13

1. AC has no direct bearing (sometimes term/scope, pay attention to the conclusion)
2. AC has unclear bearing
3. Opposite AC

** Strengthen by exposing an assumption

Front 14

Principle Types: Questions to Ask

Back 14

1. What is the conditional statement imbedded in the question?

** usually a conditional statement

Front 15

Principle Types: Method

Back 15

1. If given a conditional statement:
- diagram the conditional
- find the one that conforms to it
2. If given a conditional that is hard to diagram:
- make a motto of premise and conclusion
3. If principle is illustrated by example, extract the principle by either making a motto or making it into a conditional statement

Front 16

MBT/~MBT: Questions to Ask

Back 16

1. How strong of a prompt is it?
2. Does the AC restate a premise?
3. Does the AC take advantage of a connection of premises?
4. Is the AC weak?
5. Do all of the other AC support less?
5. Is the entire AC supported?

Front 17

MBT/~MBT: Method

Back 17

1. Eliminate wrong ACs before considering correctness of contenders based on:
- modality
- opposite meaning
- detail creep/shell
- scope
- any answer that provides a conclusion or
recommendation
- any answer that tries to explain how something
happened
- any answer that tries to predict
2. Be skeptical of very strong answer choices
3. Find the one word in each AC that makes it wrong
4. Be wary of answer choices that have reasoning errors

Front 18

Primary Objectives (I.E. things you should think about when you approach every single logical reasoning question)

Back 18

1. Determine whether a stimulus contains an argument or if it is only a set of factual statements
2a. If the stimulus contains an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument.
2b. If the stimulus contains a fact set, examine each fact.
3. If the stimulus contains an argument, determine if the strong or weak.
4. Read closely and know precisely what the author said. Do not generalize!
5. Carefully read and identify the question stem.Take a moment to mentally formulate your answer to the question stem.
6. Always read each of the five answer choices
8. Separate the answer choices into contenders and losers. After you complete this process, review the contenders and decide which answer is the correct one.
9. If all five answer choices appear to be losers, return to the stimulus and reevaluate the argument.