5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- Necessary Condition
- LSAT Conclusion trick for Method AP questions
- False dilemma
- How to solve Justify questions mechanistically
- Prephrasing Method of Reasoning questions
- a assumes that only 2 courses of action are available when there may be others. \n
- b 1. Any "new" element in the conclusion will appear in the correct answer. 2. Elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one premise normally do not appear in the correct answer. 3. Elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion usually appear in the correct answer.
- c Think about the structure of the argument before examining the answer choices. Do not expect to see the exact prephrase, there are too many variations. Make an abstract prephrase then examine each answer to see if it paraphrases the prephrase.\n
- d They often feature 2 conclusions (main and sub.), when the main conclusion is typically place in the first or second sentence and the last sentence contains the sub. conclusion. The sub. conclusion is set off by conclusion indicators while the main conclusion is not. USE CONCLUSION ID METHOD.\n
- e an event or circumstance whose occurrence is required in order for a sufficient condition to occur.
5 Multiple choice questions
- 1. Incomplete info. The author fails to consider all of the possibilities or relies upon evidence that is incomplete. This flaw can be attacked by bringing up new possibilities or info. 2. Improper comparison. The author attempts to compare two or more items that are essentially different. 3. Qualified conclusion. The author qualifies or limits the conclusion in such a way as to leave the argument open to attack.
- 1. ethical versus factual situations - when the stimulus addresses something ethical, a factual answer would be incorrect and vice versa 2. dual agreement or dual disagreement - often incorrect answer choices will supply statements that both speakers will agree with or that both speakers disagree with 3. the view of one speaker is unknown - test makers create an answer where the view of only one of the speakers in known. Use the Agree/Disagree Test - the correct answer must produce responses where one speaker would say "I agree, the statement is correct" and the other would disagree. If the 2 responses are not produced the answer is incorrect.\n
- They h ave failed to fully and accurately identify the conclusion of the argument. If a conclusion is present, you MUST identify it prior to proceeding on to the question stem.
- To weaken a conditional conclusion, attack the necessary condition by showing that the necessary condition does not need to occur in order for the sufficient condition to occur. With a combo of a conditional reasoning stimulus and a weaken question, immediately look for an answer that attacks the necessary conclusion.
- involves judgements made about groups and parts of a group. an error or composition occurs when the author attributes a characteristic of part of the group to the group as a whole or to each member of the group Error of division - author attributes characteristics of the whole to a part of the group. exp: U.S. wealthiest country. Every American is wealthy.\n
5 True/False questions
Premise Indicators → Refer to the amount or quantity in the relationship. Examples: (do not need to memorize) all, every, most, many, several, sole, only, not all, none, few.
Numbers and percentage errors → occurs when an author improperly equates a percentage with a definate quantity or vice versa. \n
What to do when a stimulus that contains conditional reasoning is combined with a must be true question stem → Immediately look for the repeat or contrapositive in the answer choices. Avoid mistaken reversals and mistaken negations.
Exceptional case/over generalization → takes a small number of intstances and treats those instances as if they support a broad, sweeping conclusion. Often appears as an incorrect answer.\n
How to strengthen an argument → this type of flawed argument attacks the person (or source) instead of the argument they advance. because the LSAT is concerned solely with argument forms, a speaker can never validly attack the character or motives or a person; instead, a speaker must always attack the argument advanced by the person. 2 forms: 1. Focusing on the motives of the source 2. Focusing on the actions of the source. \n