5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- What to do when a stimulus that contains conditional reasoning is combined with a must be true question stem
- Conclusion definition
- Primary Objective #9
- How to attack a causal conclusion
- Primary Objective #3
- a A statement or judgement that follows from one or more reasons. Ask: What is the author driving at? What does the author want me to believe? What point follows from the others?
- b Whenever you identify a causal relationship in the conclusion of an LSAT problem, immediately prepare to either weaken or strengthen the argument. Tasks for Weaken questions...must always identify a causal conclusion. Then ask if there relationship must be as stated by the author or if another explanation can be found? A. Find alternate cause for the stated effect B. Show that even the cause occurs, the effect does not occur C. Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur D. Show that the stated relationship is reversed E. Show that a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal statement.
- c Immediately look for the repeat or contrapositive in the answer choices. Avoid mistaken reversals and mistaken negations.
- d If the stimulus contains an argument, determine whether the argument is strong or weak.
- e If all 5 answer choices appear to be "losers", return to the stimulus and re-evaluate the argument.
5 Multiple choice questions
- 1. Stem uses the word "if" or another sufficient indicator 2. Stem uses the phrase "allows the conclusion to be properly drawn" or "enables the conclusion to be properly drawn". 3. Stem does not lessen the degree of justification. Never uses "most justifies" or "does the most to justify" Most stimuli contain conditional reasoning or contain numbers and percentages.
- Weaken, attack, undermine, refute, argue against, call into question, cast doubt, challenge, damage, counter, When evaluating answers ask yourself: "Would this answer choice make the author reconsider his position or force the author to respond?"
- The makers of the LSAT do not think that there are multiple causes for the same effect. When an LSAT speaker concludes that one occurance caused another, that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will ALWAYS produce the effect.
- Determine whether the stimulus contains an argument or if it is only a set of factual statements. MUST recognize whether a conclusion is present.
- 1. You must accept the stimulus info- even if it contains an error in reasoning-and use it to prove one of the answer choices must be true. 2. Any info in an answer choice that does not appear either directly in the stimulus or as a combination of items in the stimulus will be incorrect.
5 True/False questions
Assumptions and conditionality: the two types of answer choices normally produced are? → A. Eliminates an alternate cause for the stated effect B. Shows that when the cause occurs, the effect occurs, assumption answers affirm the cause/effect relationship C. Show that when the cause does not occur, the effect doe not occur D. Eliminates the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed E. Shows that the data used to make the causal statement is accurate or eliminates possible problems with the data.
Incorrect answers in Point at Issue questions → 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
Errors in the use of evidence → mistaken negation and reversal exp: taking the non-existence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist" (MN) "mistakes being sufficient to justify punishment for being required to justify it" (MR)\n
Survey errors → 1. The survey uses a biased sample 2. The survey questions are improperly constructed 3. Respondents to the survey give inaccurate responses. People do not always tell the truth when responding to surveys.\n
Assumptions and causality: typical correct answer categories → A. Eliminates an alternate cause for the stated effect B. Shows that when the cause occurs, the effect occurs, assumption answers affirm the cause/effect relationship C. Show that when the cause does not occur, the effect doe not occur D. Eliminates the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed E. Shows that the data used to make the causal statement is accurate or eliminates possible problems with the data.