The Loophole LR Study Guide Chapters 1-3

Cluster Sentences

Core Element: Contains the sentence's main noun and verb.

Optional Elements: Can be removed with no grammatical consequences.

Commas indicate that something on either side of it is an optional element.

If a piece is a complete thought, it is an essential (core) element.

Translating (3 Steps)

1. Read and understand sentences piece by piece.

2. In the beginning of your prep, cover up the stimulus.

3. Say what you read in your own words.

Remember: You need to know what the stimulus says in order to answer the question correctly.

Translating (Commandments)

1. You MUST translate EVERY LSAT stimulus.

2. Translation is not "getting the gist;" it is the opposite of skimming.

3. At first, you must translate consciously. With time, it will come naturally.

"Middle Out" trick

When you have two or more commas:

Look at the middle piece. If it is a complete thought, it's the core element. If it isn't, it's just a specifier.

Four Question Types

Arguments

Premise Set

Paradox

Debate

CLIR (and their question types)

Controversy -> Debate

Loophole -> Argument

Inference -> Presmise Set

Resolution -> Paradox

Arguments

Conclusion (cake) relies on the premise (blocks) set.

Unless the blocks are set up just right, the cake falls.

REMEMBER: When an author makes an argument, their job is to prove their conclusion necessarily true, 100%.

When evaluating whether an argument is valid, you want to examine it in its most unflattering interpretation.

Premise

Indicators: Because, For, Since, Given that, As

You do not question the premise sets. Look at how they relate to one another. If there's a common element, figure out what the repetition allows you to conclude.

Conclusion

Indicators: Therefore, Accordingly, Consequently, So, Thus, Hence, It follows that

Conclusion: the part that relies on everything else. It's the part that you attack.

Valid Conclusions must be true, it is proven.

An Inference is a valid conclusion YOU draw yourself.

Invalid conclusions take something for granted

Intermediate Conclusion

AKA "subsidiary conclusion" and "sub-conclusion."

It is a statement that acts as both a premise and a conclusion. The main conclusion relies on the intermediate conclusion.

The intermediate conclusion is held up by premises.

When determining which is the sub-conclusion and the main conclusion, look for which one relies on the other.

Determining between Conclusion or Premise?

Interrogate the individual statements. If you have no other reason (from the stimulus) why the statement is true other than "...reasons?" then it is a premise. If there is a reason inside the premise, then it is a conclusion.

Nested Claim

When someone other than the other is making a claim (conclusion).

If the author also makes a claim, it uses the nested claim as the conclusion.

Hybrid Argument

When both the other AND a second person is making a claim, it is called a Hybrid Argument.

In a Hybrid Argument, the author's conclusion relies on the nested claim as a premise.

How to attack an argument

Attack the premises' relationships to one another AND the conclusion.

Think through the possibilities that cast doubt on the way the premises (supposedly) add up to lead to the conclusion.

Look for LOOPHOLES.

Power Players (Definitions)

Arguments are made and broken by how certain you are that the conclusion has to be true.

Power Players make the argument strong or weak.

Power Players are the foundation of your house; content is the couch, decor, etc.

Destroying an argument requires focusing on the structure, the Power Players

REMEMBER: When you don't see any indicators of certainty, you are handling a sentence that is claiming certainty.

Power Players (What are they?)

Must: Absolutely, positively sure. There are no exceptions. "Must" takes on a huge burden of proof.

Cannot: Never, never, never. It is absolutely impossible.

Could: 1%-100% or the "not 0%." "Could" is must easier to prove than "must." Could = not impossible. "It's not impossible for ....." REMEMBER: "Could" does not mean "likely"

Not necessarily: 0%-99%. "Everything but 100% sure." "Necessarily" is a synonym for "must." So, "not necessarily" means "not must."

Power Player Premise Strength

"Must" premise - Strong evidence

"Cannot" premise - Strong evidence

"Could" premise - Weak evidence

"Not necessarily" = Weak evidence

Power Player Conclusion Strength

"Must" conclusion - Difficult to prove

"Cannot" conclusion - Difficult to prove

"Could" conclusion - Easy to prove

"Could" conclusion - Easy to prove

Certainty Premise/Certainty Conclusion

Certainty conclusions almost always require certainty premises in order to be valid.

Certainty conclusions can vary between "must" and "cannot" based on random wording, so they should be handled similarly.

Loopholes

There will be gaps in the premises. The thing they "forget" to tell you is the loophole.

When you are designing loopholes, any REASONABLE loophole is valid, UNLESS it conflicts with the premise.

Possibility Premise/Certainty Conclusion

Possibility premises only lead to a valid certainty conclusion when arguments are very, very simple.

TL;DR: Argument must be simple.

Certainty Premise/Possibility Conclusion

Easy to prove.

Your loophole has to be badass

After you find an awesome loophole, you have to see if its reasonable

Possibility Premise/Possibility Conclusion

These arguments are almost always invalid

"Could" stands for anything other than 0%, so you have to prove there isn't a 0% chance it could occur.

Both the premise and conclusion are weak.

When confused, replace "could" with "There is a 1% chance it could occur."

Truthiness Indicators

"Must be true" "Cannot be false"

The Diagram:

Must. Could

-------------------------------- Flip Line (T goes to F,

F goes to True)

Cannot. Not Necessarily

Example: "Must be true" becomes "Cannot be false" or "Could be false" becomes "Not necessarily true"

Negation

"The art of adding or subtracting not"

Negation does NOT = "opposite"

Must -> Not necessarily

Cannot -> Could

Must be true -> not necessarily true

(+Not Must be true = Not necessarily true OR

+Not not necessarily true = Must be true)

Cannot be true -> Could be true

(+Not cannot be true = Could be true OR

+Not could be true = Cannot be true)

REMEMBER: The truthiness indicator STAYS THE SAME.