MASTER FRAMEWORK: LSAT LR Stimulus Types & Sub-Types With Strategies

I. Argument Stimuli (contain a conclusion)

Causal Arguments, Conditional Arguments

Generalization Arguments

Comparative Arguments

Authority-Based Arguments, Pragmatic / Recommendation Arguments

Definition / Conceptual Arguments

Part–Whole Arguments

Part–Whole (Should) Arguments

Hybrid Argument Structures

II. Non-Argument Stimuli (no conclusion)

Paradox / Discrepancy

Principle-Based

Fact Sets

III. Hybrid / Meta Stimuli

Flawed Reasoning Descriptions

Role / Method

Disputes / Point at Issue

Causal Arguments Types

• Correlation → Causation
  
  

• Reversal
  
  

• Third Cause
  
  

• Necessary Cause
  
  

• Sufficient Cause
  
  

• Overstated Cause
  
  

Conditional Arguments Types

• Valid Form (Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Contrapositive)
  
  

• Invalid Form (Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent)
  
  

• Chains and Nested Conditionals
  
  

• Necessary vs. Sufficient Confusions
  
  

Generalization Arguments Types

• Sampling / Survey
  
  

• Hasty Generalization
  
  

• Statistical Projections
  
  

• Representativeness
  
  

Comparative Arguments Types

• Analogy
  
  

• Irrelevant Comparison
  
  

• Temporal Comparison (past/future)
  
  

• Apples vs. Oranges fallacies
  
  

Authority-Based Arguments Types

• Appeal to Expert
  
  

• Appeal to General Belief
  
  

• Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
  
  

Pragmatic / Recommendation Arguments Types

• Policy/Action Recommendation
  
  

• Cost-Benefit Justification
  
  

• Risk/Reward Tradeoff
  
  

• Means–Ends Reasoning
  
  

Definition / Conceptual Arguments Types

• Semantic Ambiguity
  
  

• Equivocation
  
  

• Redefinition
  
  

Part–Whole Arguments Types

• Composition (part → whole)
  
  

• Division (whole → part)
  
  

• Representative Member
  
  

Part–Whole (Should) Arguments Types

• Normative claims (“should,” “ought”)
  
  

• Ranking / Prioritization
  
  

• Best/Worst Option
  
  

Hybrid Argument Structures Types

• Circular Reasoning
  
  

• False Dilemma
  
  

• Straw Man
  
  

• Conflating Evidence with Conclusion
  
  

• Percentages vs. Numbers
  
  

Paradox / Discrepancy Types

• Two seemingly contradictory facts
  
  

• Unexpected result
  
  

• Incomplete explanation
  
  

Principle-Based Types

• Principle + Application
  
  

• Principle → Specific case
  
  

• Specific case → Principle
  
  

• Competing Principles
  
  

Fact Sets Types

• Neutral information (background, definitions, scenarios)
  
  

• Used for MSS, MBT, Inference
  
  

Flawed Reasoning Descriptions Types

• Argument given + flaw identified
  
  

Role / Method Types

• Identify function of premise/conclusion
  
  

• Identify reasoning technique
  
  

Disputes / Point at Issue Types

• Two speakers with contrasting views
  
  

• Overlap of agreement/disagreement
  
  

How to Solve Causal Arguments

Description: Claim that X caused Y, or Y caused X, or Z caused both. Goal is to infer cause from correlation/observation.
Language Type: Strong (“the cause,” “results in,” “leads to”)
Correct Answer Language: Moderate/precise — ruling out alternatives, confirming mechanism.
Incorrect Answer Language: Extreme or irrelevant causes/correlations.
Structure: Premises (data/correlation) → Conclusion (causal claim).
Gap: Alternative causes, reverse causation, correlation ≠ causation.
NA: No other cause explains it better; directionality is correct.
Argument Type: Inductive, explanatory.

How to Solve Conditional Arguments

Description: If–then logic, sufficiency vs. necessity.
Language Type: Strong (“if,” “only if,” “must,” “guarantees”).
Correct Answer Language: Mirrors exact conditional logic.
Incorrect Answer Language: Confuses sufficient/necessary, uses “some/many” to weaken necessity.
Structure: Premises (conditional rules) → Conclusion (application).
Gap: Confusing sufficiency/necessity.
NA: No exception breaks the conditional link.
Argument Type: Deductive (valid or flawed depending on form).

How to Solve Generalization / Sampling

Description: Small sample → big conclusion.
Language Type: Strong quantifiers (“most,” “all,” “usually”).
Correct Answer Language: Calls out representativeness, sample size.
Incorrect Answer Language: Brings in irrelevant differences, extreme universals.
Structure: Premise (survey/study) → Conclusion (population claim).
Gap: Sample ≠ population.
NA: Sample is representative.
Argument Type: Inductive.

How to Solve Comparative / Analogy

Description: A is like B → what’s true of A must be true of B.
Language Type: Moderate (“similar,” “comparable,” “just as”).
Correct Answer Language: Points out key difference/similarity.
Incorrect Answer Language: Irrelevant or exaggerated comparisons.
Structure: Premise (similarity) → Conclusion (shared property).
Gap: Assuming irrelevant similarities are sufficient.
NA: Relevant factors are indeed comparable.
Argument Type: Inductive.

How to Solve

How to Solve Authority-Based

Description: Conclusion based on someone’s expertise.
Language Type: Strong appeal (“experts agree,” “studies prove”).
Correct Answer Language: Evaluates credibility, field relevance.
Incorrect Answer Language: Overgeneralizes authority, irrelevant fields.
Structure: Premise (expert opinion) → Conclusion.
Gap: Expert may be wrong, biased, or irrelevant field.
NA: Expert is credible and relevant.
Argument Type: Inductive.

How to Solve Pragmatic / Recommendation

Description: Argues we should/shouldn’t do something.
Language Type: Prescriptive (“should,” “ought,” “must”).
Correct Answer Language: Identifies pros/cons, practicality.
Incorrect Answer Language: Ignores tradeoffs, uses absolutes.
Structure: Premise (problem/fact) → Conclusion (recommendation).
Gap: Ignores alternatives or costs.
NA: Benefits outweigh risks.
Argument Type: Practical reasoning.

How to Solve Definition / Conceptual

Description: Argues based on definition of a term.
Language Type: Moderate but categorical.
Correct Answer Language: Clarifies scope of definition.
Incorrect Answer Language: Misuses word or shifts meaning.
Structure: Premises (definition) → Conclusion (classification).
Gap: Ambiguity in meaning.
NA: The term is used consistently.
Argument Type: Deductive.

How to Solve Part–Wholes

Description: Infers from part → whole, or whole → part.
Language Type: Strong (“therefore,” “thus”).
Correct Answer Language: Flags composition/division fallacy.
Incorrect Answer Language: Introduces irrelevant traits.
Structure: Premise (part/whole property) → Conclusion (whole/part property).
Gap: Assuming properties transfer.
NA: The property applies across levels.
Argument Type: Inductive.

How to Solve Value Judgment

Description: Evaluative conclusions (“best,” “worst,” “should”).
Language Type: Strong normative.
Correct Answer Language: Identifies criteria for judgment.
Incorrect Answer Language: Brings in irrelevant values.
Structure: Premises (criteria/evidence) → Conclusion (evaluation).
Gap: Criteria may be incomplete.
NA: Criteria used are the right ones.
Argument Type: Normative.

How to Solve Hybrid Flaws

(Circular, False Dilemma, Straw Man, Evidence ≠ Conclusion, Percent vs. Number)

• Language: Usually strong; sweeping universals.
  
  

• Correct Answer: Names the logical flaw precisely.
  
  

• Incorrect Answer: Mislabels flaw or exaggerates.
  
  

• Structure: Premise → Flawed leap to conclusion.
  
  

• Gap: Each flaw type has unique assumption.
  
  

• NA: Audience doesn’t reject the flawed step.
  
  

• Argument Type: Deductive-looking but flawed.
  
  

How to Solve Paradox

Description: Two facts appear contradictory.
Language: Neutral, factual.
Correct Answer: Reconciles both.
Incorrect Answer: Exacerbates paradox, irrelevant.
Structure: Fact 1 + Fact 2 (no conclusion).
Gap: Missing reconciliation.
NA: Both facts are true.
Type: Explanatory.

How to Solve Principle

Description: General rule applied to specific case or vice versa.
Language: Moderate → general terms.
Correct Answer: Matches principle to facts exactly.
Incorrect Answer: Too narrow/broad, irrelevant.
Structure: Rule + case (no conclusion or implied).
Gap: Misapplied principle.
NA: Principle governs this situation.
Type: Normative/deductive.

How to Solve Fact Set / Inference

Description: Purely descriptive info → draw inference.
Language: Neutral, weak.
Correct Answer: Soft/modest inferences.
Incorrect Answer: Too strong (“must,” “always”).
Structure: Facts only.
Gap: None — inference relies on MBT.
NA: All facts are true.
Type: Informational.

How to Solve Flaw Descriptions

• Goal: Identify reasoning error.
  
  

• Language: Strong; flaw language in answers is weak/moderate.
  
  

• Structure: Argument.
  
  

• Gap: Depends on flaw.
  
  

• NA: Reader doesn’t notice flaw.
  
  

How to Solve Role / Method Disputes

• Goal: Identify function or technique.
  
  

• Language: Precise, often mid-strength.
  
  

• Correct Answer: Mirrors structure exactly.
  
  

• Incorrect: Distorts role/technique.
  
  

• Structure: Argument.
  
  

• Gap: None (analytical task).
  
  

How to Solve Disputes

• Goal: Identify point of agreement/disagreement.
  
  

• Language: Moderate.
  
  

• Correct: Clear overlap or contrast.
  
  

• Incorrect: Too extreme, not discussed.
  
  

• Structure: Two speakers, opposing views.
  
  

• Gap: Missing shared scope.

Causal Arguments — General

1. Description / Goal: Argues that X caused Y (or that X will cause Y). Goal: establish a causal link.
   
   

2. Language tone: Often moderate → strong (“causes”, “results in”, “leads to”, sometimes hedged: “likely caused”).
   
   

3. Correct-answer language: Precise causal link, elimination of alternatives, or evidence strengthening causation (e.g., “Because X preceded Y and no other plausible cause exists, X caused Y”).
   
   

4. Incorrect-answer language: Overstated causal claims, reversed causation, mere correlation, coincidence, third-factor claims.
   
   

5. Structure: Premises = association, temporal order, mechanism claim; Conclusion = causal claim.
   
   

6. Gap: Association ≠ causation; unaddressed reverse causation and third-factor explanations.
   
   

7. Necessary Assumption: There are no other plausible causes (or reverse causation is impossible) and the correlation is not spurious.
   
   

8. Argument types overlapped: Correlation→Causation; Third Cause; Reversal; Necessary/Sufficient Cause; Overstated Cause.
   
   

9. Associated LR Qs: Flaw, Weaken, Strengthen, NA, Sufficient Assumption, Parallel Reasoning, Parallel Flaw, Resolve the Paradox (if apparent contradiction), MBT/MSS (if inference).
   
   

1) Correlation → Causation (Subtype)

1. Description: Observed correlation used to infer causal relation.
   
   

2. Tone: Weak→mid usually (authors sometimes hedge).
   
   

3. Correct answer: Identifies third-factor, offers mechanism, or rules out other causes.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Treat correlation as proof; accept coincidence or ignore third factors.
   
   

5. Structure: Premise: X and Y are correlated. Conclusion: X causes Y.
   
   

6. Gap: No mechanism; possible common cause; temporal order unknown.
   
   

7. NA: No confounding variables / X precedes Y / alternative causes ruled out.
   
   

8. Overlap: Third Cause, Temporal Fallacy, Statistical Generalization.
   
   

9. Q types: Weaken, Strengthen, Flaw, NA, Parallel Flaw.
   
   

2) Reversal / Reverse Causation (Subtype)

1. Description: Author claims X causes Y but actually Y may cause X.
   
   

2. Tone: Mid→strong (often assertive).
   
   

3. Correct answer: Points out reverse causation or that correlation is consistent with Y→X.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts X→Y without considering Y→X.
   
   

5. Structure: Correlation + causal claim (direction specified).
   
   

6. Gap: Direction of causation unproven.
   
   

7. NA: Temporal precedence of X over Y (or existence of mechanism from X→Y).
   
   

8. Overlap: Temporal Fallacy, Causation types.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, NA, Parallel Flaw.
   
   

3) Third Cause / Common Cause (Subtype)

1. Description: Correlation explained by Z causing both X and Y.
   
   

2. Tone: Weak→mid in original stimulus; answers often point to Z strongly.
   
   

3. Correct: Identifies plausible Z that explains both X and Y (destroys causal inference).
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts X→Y; proposes irrelevant mechanisms.
   
   

5. Structure: Observation of X & Y; inference X→Y.
   
   

6. Gap: Missing account of potential confounder Z.
   
   

7. NA: There is no confounder Z causing both X and Y.
   
   

8. Overlap: Correlation→Causation, Sampling Issues.
   
   

9. Q types: Weaken, Flaw, NA, Parallel Flaw.
   
   

4) Necessary Cause (Subtype)

1. Description: Argues X is necessary for Y (Y cannot occur without X).
   
   

2. Tone: Strong (“needed”, “required”, “without X Y would not occur”).
   
   

3. Correct: Shows that eliminating X eliminates Y or that X is indeed required.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Treats X as sufficient, or assumes impossibility of Y without X without proof.
   
   

5. Structure: Premises cite dependence; conclusion: X necessary for Y.
   
   

6. Gap: Fails to prove that Y never occurs without X (exceptions).
   
   

7. NA: Y cannot occur unless X is present (no alternative means).
   
   

8. Overlap: Necessary vs. Sufficient confusion; Conditional Claims.
   
   

9. Q types: NA, Strengthen, Weaken, Parallel Reasoning.
   
   

5) Sufficient Cause (Subtype)

1. Description: Argues X guarantees Y.
   
   

2. Tone: Strong (“if X then Y”, “will result in”).
   
   

3. Correct: Confirms that whenever X occurs, Y follows; demonstrates mechanism.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Treats X as merely correlated, or assumes reverse causation.
   
   

5. Structure: If X, then Y (premises supporting if). Conclusion: X→Y.
   
   

6. Gap: Overgeneralization or exceptions; insufficient evidence that X always produces Y.
   
   

7. NA: Whenever X occurs, Y follows (no exceptions).
   
   

8. Overlap: Conditional Claims, Conditional Chains.
   
   

9. Q types: Sufficient Assumption, NA (inverse), Strengthen.
   
   

6) Overstated Cause (Subtype)

1. Description: Claims magnitude or exclusivity of effect beyond evidence.
   
   

2. Tone: Strong/overconfident (superlatives).
   
   

3. Correct: Scales back effect or shows other contributing factors.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts degree/exclusivity claims.
   
   

5. Structure: Premises mild; conclusion exaggerated.
   
   

6. Gap: Unsupported scope/magnitude.
   
   

7. NA: Data supports claimed magnitude/exclusivity.
   
   

8. Overlap: Relative v. Absolute, Percent v. Whole.
   
   

9. Q types: Weaken, Flaw, Strengthen.
   
   

Conditional Arguments

(Arguments built around “if… then…” claims; common subtypes require attention to formal validity.)

1) Valid Forms (Modus Ponens / Modus Tollens)

1. Description: Properly structured conditionals where conclusion follows validly.
   
   

2. Tone: Strong (precise conditional language).
   
   

3. Correct: Mirrors conditional logic, preserves logical form.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Fallaciously manipulate conditionals (e.g., affirming consequent).
   
   

5. Structure: If A then B; A; therefore B (MP) OR If A then B; not B; therefore not A (MT).
   
   

6. Gap: None if premises accepted; errors arise if one premise is unsupported.
   
   

7. NA: The conditional premise is true and the antecedent/negation premise holds.
   
   

8. Overlap: Conditional Chains, Necessary vs. Sufficient.
   
   

9. Q types: Role in Argument, Inference, Must Be True, Parallel Reasoning.
   
   

2) Invalid Forms (Affirming the Consequent / Denying the Antecedent)

1. Description: Common formal fallacies: from “If A then B” concluding A from B (affirming consequent) or from “If A then B” concluding not B from not A (denying antecedent).
   
   

2. Tone: Often strong conditional language in stimulus; conclusion leaps beyond logic.
   
   

3. Correct: Identifies the formal invalidity (reverse or negative error).
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts the invalid inference or supplies irrelevant support.
   
   

5. Structure: If A then B; B; therefore A (AC) OR If A then B; not A; therefore not B (DA).
   
   

6. Gap: Missing justification that conditional is biconditional or vice versa.
   
   

7. NA: The conditional is biconditional or additional premises render the step valid.
   
   

8. Overlap: Necessary vs. Sufficient Confusion, Conditional Chains.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Parallel Flaw, NA, Weaken.
   
   

3) Chains and Nested Conditionals

1. Description: Multiple conditional links (If A→B, B→C → ergo A→C).
   
   

2. Tone: Variable — can be mid to strong.
   
   

3. Correct: Properly transposes chain or finds break in chain.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Assumes transitivity when chain is broken; ignores scope/quantifier differences.
   
   

5. Structure: Sequence of conditionals leading to distant conclusion.
   
   

6. Gap: Missing link(s) or unproven intermediate conditionals.
   
   

7. NA: All links in chain actually hold (no exceptions).
   
   

8. Overlap: Conditional Claims, Conditional Chains.
   
   

9. Q types: Role, Inference, Parallel Reasoning, NA.
   
   

4) Necessary vs. Sufficient Confusions

1. Description: Mistakes necessary for sufficient and vice versa.
   
   

2. Tone: Often strong; misuses “only if”, “unless”, “if”.
   
   

3. Correct: Clarifies direction and translates “only if/if…then/unless.”
   
   

4. Incorrect: Flips the conditional or treats “only” as “if.”
   
   

5. Structure: Conditional premise, misapplied modality.
   
   

6. Gap: Misinterpretation of natural-language conditionals.
   
   

7. NA: Proper conditional translation (i.e., recognition of which is antecedent/ consequent).
   
   

8. Overlap: Equivocation on Should/Will/Can, Conditional Chains.
   
   

9. Q types: NA, Role, Sufficient/Necessary Assumption, Parallel.
   
   

Generalization Arguments

(Arguments that move from sample → whole or particular → general.)

1) Sampling / Survey (Representative sample)

1. Description: Infers population properties from sample data.
   
   

2. Tone: Mid→strong, often statistical language.
   
   

3. Correct: Shows sample is representative, sample size sufficient, or methodology sound.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Overgeneralizes from biased/ small or unrepresentative samples.
   
   

5. Structure: Data from sample; conclusion about population.
   
   

6. Gap: Sampling bias, low N, unrepresentative demographics.
   
   

7. NA: Sample is representative / no selection bias / methodology reliable.
   
   

8. Overlap: Sampling/Survey/Study Generalization, Statistical Projection.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, Strengthen, NA, Parallel Flaw.
   
   

2) Hasty Generalization

1. Description: General conclusion from too small or constricted evidence.
   
   

2. Tone: Strong but unjustified.
   
   

3. Correct: Identifies sample insufficiency or need for larger evidence.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts sweeping conclusion without adequate sample.
   
   

5. Structure: Few instances cited; broad claim.
   
   

6. Gap: Insufficient data.
   
   

7. NA: Adequacy of sample size and scope.
   
   

8. Overlap: Representativeness, Statistical/Percent v. Whole.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, NA.
   
   

3) Statistical Projections / Percent vs. Whole

1. Description: Projects percentages or rates to absolute counts, or vice versa.
   
   

2. Tone: Often strong numeric claims.
   
   

3. Correct: Correctly accounts for base rates, denominators, and sample size.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Misuses percentages, confuses relative/absolute differences.
   
   

5. Structure: Statistical premise; projectionary conclusion.
   
   

6. Gap: Failure to account for base rates or differing denominators.
   
   

7. NA: Same base population / valid extrapolation.
   
   

8. Overlap: Percent v. Numbers, Sampling.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, Strengthen, MBT.
   
   

Comparative & Analogy Arguments

(Arguments that focus on making valid or invalid conclusions based on comparing like or unlike objects/situations).

1) Analogy (Weak or Strong)

1. Description: Argues because two things are similar on some features, they're similar on another.
   
   

2. Tone: Weak→mid (authors often overstate analogy strength).
   
   

3. Correct: Shows relevant similarities or undermines by highlighting disanalogies.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Relies on superficial or irrelevant similarities.
   
   

5. Structure: A ~ B on traits X,Y; A has Z; therefore B likely has Z.
   
   

6. Gap: Irrelevant or insufficient similarity; missing crucial differences.
   
   

7. NA: Similarity on relevant features that affect the conclusion.
   
   

8. Overlap: Analogy, Irrelevant Comparison, Apples vs. Oranges.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, Strengthen, Parallel Reasoning.
   
   

2) Irrelevant Comparison / Apples vs. Oranges

1. Description: Compares things on inappropriate or noncomparable bases.
   
   

2. Tone: Often mid.
   
   

3. Correct: Exposes the incommensurability or irrelevant metric.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts the comparison at face value.
   
   

5. Structure: Comparative premise → comparative conclusion.
   
   

6. Gap: Different contexts, scales, or units make comparison faulty.
   
   

7. NA: Comparison uses commensurate traits and proper units.
   
   

8. Overlap: Comparison Arguments, Statistical Confusions.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken.
   
   

Authority-Based Arguments

(Arguments that use someone else to prove a point. The person or conclusion can be valid or invalid, and mix with either a valid or invalid argument.)

1) Appeal to Expert / Inappropriate Authority

1. Description: Uses testimony of someone as evidence; problem arises when authority is unqualified or consensus lacking.
   
   

2. Tone: Mid→strong (often relying on prestige language).
   
   

3. Correct: Requires expert relevantness and consensus or evidence of reliability.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts any authority; confuses celebrity/nonexpert with authority.
   
   

5. Structure: Authority says P; therefore P true.
   
   

6. Gap: Authority not an expert in relevant field; consensus absent.
   
   

7. NA: Authority is qualified and reliable on the matter.
   
   

8. Overlap: Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity (when majority cited).
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, Strengthen, NA, Parallel Flaw.
   
   

Pragmatic / Recommendation / Policy Arguments

(Arguments that are based on results/established or establishing facts/situations.)

1) Policy / Action Recommendation

1. Description: Argues for a course of action based on benefits/costs or means–ends reasoning.
   
   

2. Tone: Practical / often strong.
   
   

3. Correct: Shows net benefit, feasibility, or need.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Overlooks costs, side-effects, feasibility problems.
   
   

5. Structure: Evidence of benefit/cost → recommendation.
   
   

6. Gap: Omission of unintended consequences or alternative implementations.
   
   

7. NA: Benefits outweigh costs / action is feasible and effective.
   
   

8. Overlap: Cost-Benefit, Risk/Reward Tradeoff, Means–Ends.
   
   

9. Q types: Evaluate the Argument, Strengthen/Weaken, NA.
   
   

2) Cost-Benefit / Risk-Reward Justification

1. Description: Decision justified by weighing gains vs losses.
   
   

2. Tone: Mid→strong (quantitative language often used).
   
   

3. Correct: Provides accurate account of both sides or shows gain dominance.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Minimizes costs, ignores long-term harms.
   
   

5. Structure: Estimated benefits exceed estimated costs → endorse.
   
   

6. Gap: Miscalculated probabilities or ignored negative externalities.
   
   

7. NA: Estimates are accurate and comparable.
   
   

8. Overlap: Pragmatic/Recommendation, Plan→Outcome.
   
   

9. Q types: Evaluate, Strengthen, Weaken.
   
   

Definition / Conceptual Arguments

(Arguments that are based on terms/definitions or through confusion/ambiguity.)

1) Semantic Ambiguity / Equivocation

1. Description: Argument pivots on shifting meanings of a key term.
   
   

2. Tone: Mid (language may be casual).
   
   

3. Correct: Identifies equivocation or clarifies precise definitions.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Treats ambiguous term as consistently used.
   
   

5. Structure: Premises use term one way; conclusion uses another.
   
   

6. Gap: Unacknowledged equivocation between senses.
   
   

7. NA: Term used univocally or definitions are supplied.
   
   

8. Overlap: Ambiguous Term Use, Equivocation.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Role of Statement, Point at Issue.
   
   

2) Redefinition (shifting definition mid-argument)

1. Description: Author redefines term to suit conclusion.
   
   

2. Tone: Mid→strong.
   
   

3. Correct: Exposes illicit redefinition.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts redefinition without scrutiny.
   
   

5. Structure: Implicit definitional shift supporting claim.
   
   

6. Gap: Unsupported change of meaning.
   
   

7. NA: Definition remains consistent.
   
   

8. Overlap: Equivocation, Semantic Ambiguity.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Role, NA.
   
   

Part–Whole Arguments

(Arguments that are based on one small thing representing something big or vice versa)

1) Composition (part → whole)

1. Description: Attributes a property of parts to the whole.
   
   

2. Tone: Often mid; can be strong.
   
   

3. Correct: Shows why part-property transfers to whole (e.g., additive).
   
   

4. Incorrect: Assumes transfer without justification.
   
   

5. Structure: Each part has property P; therefore whole has P.
   
   

6. Gap: Aggregation issues; emergent properties differ at whole level.
   
   

7. NA: Property is aggregative or preserved under composition.
   
   

8. Overlap: Part v. Whole, Statistical/Percent v. Whole.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, Parallel Flaw.
   
   

2) Division (whole → part)

1. Description: Attributes a property of the whole to its parts.
   
   

2. Tone: Often unjustified / strong.
   
   

3. Correct: Shows property is distributive to parts.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Assumes distributive property incorrectly.
   
   

5. Structure: Whole has P; therefore each part has P.
   
   

6. Gap: Whole-level properties need not distribute to parts.
   
   

7. NA: Property is present in every member (homogeneity).
   
   

8. Overlap: Representative Member, Part–Whole.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken.
   
   

Value Judgments / Normative Arguments

(Arguments that are based on recommendations or judgements and morality, rather than pure fact)

1) Normative Claims (“should”, “ought”)

1. Description: Moves from facts to recommendations or evaluative conclusions.
   
   

2. Tone: Strong moral/ normative language.
   
   

3. Correct: Supplies bridging premises linking facts to values or principles.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Commits is-ought fallacy (derives ought from is without principle).
   
   

5. Structure: Evidence about outcomes + implicit value principle → should.
   
   

6. Gap: Missing moral/practical premise tying fact to value.
   
   

7. NA: Acceptance of the normative principle connecting fact to obligation.
   
   

8. Overlap: Principle arguments, Appeal to Popularity sometimes misused.
   
   

9. Q types: Principle (Apply/Identify/Justify), NA, Flaw.
   
   

Hybrid / Misc Argument Forms (common LSAT fallacies and structures)

(Arguments flaws, mainly found in Flaw questions)

1) Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

1. Description: Conclusion is presupposed in premises.
   
   

2. Tone: Strong (tautological).
   
   

3. Correct: Points out premise = conclusion or premise assumes what it purports to prove.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Treats premise as independent evidence.
   
   

5. Structure: Premise(s) restate or presuppose conclusion.
   
   

6. Gap: No independent support for the claim.
   
   

7. NA: Existence of independent evidence not presupposing conclusion.
   
   

8. Overlap: Circular Reasoning (explicit).
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, Evaluate.
   
   

2) False Dilemma / False Dichotomy

1. Description: Offers only two options when more exist.
   
   

2. Tone: Strong, exclusionary language.
   
   

3. Correct: Identifies omitted alternatives or middle ground.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts binary framing.
   
   

5. Structure: Premises eliminate options leaving two; conclusion picks one.
   
   

6. Gap: Excludes additional viable alternatives.
   
   

7. NA: No other plausible options exist.
   
   

8. Overlap: False Dilemma; Plan/Proposal errors.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, NA.
   
   

3) Straw Man / Mischaracterization

1. Description: Misstates opponent’s view then attacks the misstatement.
   
   

2. Tone: Often adversarial.
   
   

3. Correct: Shows mischaracterization and clarifies original position.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Targets the mischaracterized (weaker) version.
   
   

5. Structure: Premise misrepresents, conclusion attacks that misrepresentation.
   
   

6. Gap: Failure to address the real argument.
   
   

7. NA: The opponent truly holds the misrepresented view (or no misrepresentation).
   
   

8. Overlap: Mischaracterization, Irrelevant Evidence.
   
   

9. Q types: Point at Issue, Flaw, Role.
   
   

4) Ad Hominem

1. Description: Rejects argument based on speaker’s character or motive.
   
   

2. Tone: Pejorative; often dismissive.
   
   

3. Correct: Discards ad hominem as irrelevant to truth of claim.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Accepts personal attack as evidence.
   
   

5. Structure: Attack on proponent → rejection of claim.
   
   

6. Gap: Confuses credibility with truth; irrelevant attribute.
   
   

7. NA: Speaker’s character is directly relevant to truth of claim.
   
   

8. Overlap: Ad Hominem.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Point of Agreement/Dispute.
   
   

5) Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)

1. Description: Claim is true because many believe it.
   
   

2. Tone: Appeal-based; often persuasive language.
   
   

3. Correct: Points out that popularity ≠ truth.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Treats majority belief as proof.
   
   

5. Structure: Many believe P; therefore P is true.
   
   

6. Gap: Logical irrelevance of majority opinion to truth.
   
   

7. NA: Popular belief correlates with truth (rarely defensible).
   
   

8. Overlap: Appeal to Popularity, Authority.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken.
   
   

6) Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence

1. Description: Concludes something false because no evidence of it exists.
   
   

2. Tone: Often unwarranted negative inference.
   
   

3. Correct: Distinguishes lack of evidence from disproof; offers alternative explanations.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Treats silence as proof of nonexistence.
   
   

5. Structure: No evidence for X → Thus ¬X.
   
   

6. Gap: Failure to consider incomplete investigation or hidden evidence.
   
   

7. NA: Investigation was exhaustive and would have uncovered X if true.
   
   

8. Overlap: Absence of Evidence argument type.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, NA.
   
   

Temporal Fallacies / Projection / Future Predictions

1. Description: Projects past into future without accounting for changing conditions.
   
   

2. Tone: Often confident but speculative.
   
   

3. Correct: Points to changing conditions or missing trend stability.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Assumes trend continues unchanged.
   
   

5. Structure: Past/Present observation → future claim.
   
   

6. Gap: Failure to consider intervening events, nonstationarity.
   
   

7. NA: Conditions remain constant over relevant interval.
   
   

8. Overlap: Temporal Fallacy, Statistical Projection.
   
   

9. Q types: Weaken, Strengthen, Resolve the Paradox.
   
   

Plan / Proposal → Outcome (Means–Ends Reasoning)

1. Description: Argues plan X will produce outcome Y.
   
   

2. Tone: Often practical and assertive.
   
   

3. Correct: Shows plan is causally sufficient and implementable.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Assumes desired outcome without showing feasibility/mechanism.
   
   

5. Structure: If plan implemented → predicted effect.
   
   

6. Gap: Implementation issues, unintended consequences.
   
   

7. NA: Plan is feasible and the causal mechanism operates as described.
   
   

8. Overlap: Plan/Proposal→Outcome, Cost-Benefit.
   
   

9. Q types: Evaluate, NA, Strengthen.
   
   

Comparison Argument (Temporal / Cross-context)

1. Description: Uses temporal or contextual comparisons (e.g., “we did X last year and succeeded; we’ll succeed now”).
   
   

2. Tone: Mid.
   
   

3. Correct: Shows contexts are comparable or identifies differing variables.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Assumes contexts are identical.
   
   

5. Structure: Past case A → claim about current case B.
   
   

6. Gap: Contextual differences ignored.
   
   

7. NA: Major relevant variables are the same across contexts.
   
   

8. Overlap: Temporal Comparison, Irrelevant Comparison.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, Parallel.
   
   

Percentages vs. Numbers / Relative vs. Absolute

1. Description: Mistakes in interpreting rates vs totals (e.g., 50% increase in small base vs large base).
   
   

2. Tone: Often numeric and assertive.
   
   

3. Correct: Clarifies denominators and absolute magnitudes.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Treats percentages as absolute significant change without context.
   
   

5. Structure: Statistical claim → sweeping inference.
   
   

6. Gap: Misleading metric or base rate.
   
   

7. NA: Bases and denominators are comparable and meaningful.
   
   

8. Overlap: Percent v. Whole, Statistical Projection.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw, Weaken, MBT.
   
   

II. # Non-Argument Stimuli

(no explicit conclusion; used for inference/interpretation tasks)

Paradox / Discrepancy Stimuli

1. Description / Goal: Present two facts/trends that appear inconsistent; task is to reconcile them.
   
   

2. Tone: Neutral to mid; descriptive.
   
   

3. Correct-answer language: Proposes a mechanism or contextual factor that resolves discrepancy (e.g., “Because Z was changing, this explains the divergence”).
   
   

4. Incorrect: Restates facts, offers unrelated explanations, or proposes incompatible mechanisms.
   
   

5. Structure: Two or more surprising facts; no conclusion.
   
   

6. Gap: Missing causal factor/hidden variable/time lag.
   
   

7. NA: Proposed resolving factor must account for both facts.
   
   

8. Overlap: Paradox, Resolve the Paradox, Explain the Phenomenon.
   
   

9. Q types: Resolve the Paradox, Explain, MBT, Most Strongly Supported.
   
   

Principle-Based Stimuli (rules, laws, maxims)

1. Description: Provides a general principle and asks you to apply or derive. Two subpatterns: principle→case and case→principle.
   
   

2. Tone: Formal, strong.
   
   

3. Correct: Accurately connects principle to instance (or extracts principle consistent with cases).
   
   

4. Incorrect: Misapplies principle or overgeneralizes.
   
   

5. Structure: Statement of principle and one/more cases; no argumentative chain required.
   
   

6. Gap: Unstated exceptions or ambiguous mapping between principle and case.
   
   

7. NA: Principle truly governs the case as posed; no exceptions relevant.
   
   

8. Overlap: Principle (Identify/Apply/Justify), Principle-based Strengthen/Weaken.
   
   

9. Q types: Principle Identify/Apply/Justify, Parallel Principle, Strengthen with Principle.
   
   

Fact Sets / Neutral Info

1. Description: A set of background facts, definitions, or hypotheticals used for MBT / Inference questions.
   
   

2. Tone: Neutral / descriptive.
   
   

3. Correct: Direct logical outcomes or deductive consequences.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Introduce assumptions not derivable from fact set.
   
   

5. Structure: Data only.
   
   

6. Gap: No gap — test asks you to infer permissible conclusions.
   
   

7. NA: N/A (these are deductive tasks).
   
   

8. Overlap: Must Be True, Most Strongly Supported, Inference.
   
   

9. Q types: MBT, MSS, Inference, Soft MBT.
   
   

III. # Hybrid / Meta Stimuli

(mixed or instruction-style; often used for Method/Role/Flaw identification)

Flawed-Reasoning Descriptions (Meta)

1. Description: Stimulus may present an argument and state a flaw (or ask to identify the flaw).
   
   

2. Tone: Analytical / diagnostic.
   
   

3. Correct: Names or matches the logical flaw precisely (e.g., correlation/causation, equivocation).
   
   

4. Incorrect: Name a different flaw, or only partially captures it.
   
   

5. Structure: Argument + identification/claim about reasoning.
   
   

6. Gap: Faulty mapping between described flaw and actual flaw.
   
   

7. NA: The described flaw actually underlies the argument’s weakness.
   
   

8. Overlap: All Fallacy types.
   
   

9. Q types: Flaw in Reasoning, Parallel Flaw, Role/Method.
   
   

Role / Method / Function Stimuli

1. Description: Asks what a statement does (e.g., provides background, counters objection, qualifies claim).
   
   

2. Tone: Neutral; function-oriented.
   
   

3. Correct: Uses functional verbs (“provides an exception”, “offers evidence”, “states a policy”).
   
   

4. Incorrect: Mistakes function or confuses role with conclusion.
   
   

5. Structure: Argument with one statement highlighted for role identification.
   
   

6. Gap: Misreading of rhetorical or inferential function.
   
   

7. NA: The highlighted statement performs the stated role in the argument’s structure.
   
   

8. Overlap: Role in Argument, Role of a Statement.
   
   

9. Q types: Role in Argument, Main Conclusion, Point of Issue.
   
   

Dispute / Point at Issue / Agreement Stimuli (Two speakers)

1. Description: Two speakers present positions; questions ask about points of contention or agreement.
   
   

2. Tone: Dialogic; comparative.
   
   

3. Correct: Precisely identifies the propositional content both accept/reject.
   
   

4. Incorrect: Misattributes a view, picks a point both accept/reject incorrectly.
   
   

5. Structure: Two short arguments / statements, sometimes rebuttal.
   
   

6. Gap: Subtlety in what is explicitly asserted vs implied.
   
   

7. NA: Both speakers actually accept/deny the identified proposition.
   
   

8. Overlap: Point at Issue, Point of Agreement, Point of Dispute.
   
   

9. Q types: Point at Issue, Point of Agreement, Must Be False (if one denies).
   
   

Hybrid / Composite Stimuli (mix argument + principle + data)

1. Description: Complex stimuli that combine argument, counterargument, and principles — common in higher difficulty LR.
   
   

2. Tone: Layered; can be strong in parts and neutral in others.
   
   

3. Correct: Unpacks each component, isolates the target task (flaw, role, inference).
   
   

4. Incorrect: Focuses on the wrong component or fails to isolate.
   
   

5. Structure: Argument(s) + supporting data + normative principle(s).
   
   

6. Gap: Multiple — ambiguous which claim supports conclusion; hidden assumptions across levels.
   
   

7. NA: Each link connecting levels is valid or the problematic link is specified.
   
   

8. Overlap: Almost all — Principle, Flaw, Role, Evaluate.
   
   

9. Q types: High-level: Evaluate, Strengthen-with-Principle, Parallel Principle, Justify.
   
   

Additional Common Micro-Types (brief, grouped)

(These are frequently encountered and map to your argument-type taxonomy.)

• Ad Hominem — see above (Flaw, Point at Issue).
  
  

• Ambiguous Term Use (Equivocation) — see Semantic Ambiguity.
  
  

• Whole v. Part / Part v. Whole — Composition/Division.
  
  

• Irrelevant Evidence — Premises irrelevant to conclusion; shows up in Flaw, Evaluate.
  
  

• Appeal to Popularity / Authority — see Authority.
  
  

• Relative v. Absolute — often appears in normative/comparative claims (e.g., “better” vs “best” confusions).
  
  

• Temporal Fallacy — see Temporal section.
  
  

• Equivocation on Should/Will/Can — normative v. predictive conflation.
  
  

• Sampling / Survey / Study Generalization — see Sampling.
  
  

• Plan/Proposal → Outcome — see Pragmatic.
  
  

• Statistical / Percent v. Whole numbers — see Percent section.
  
  

• Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence — see above.
  
  

• Analogy — see Analogy.
  
  

• Conditional Claims & Chains — see Conditional section.
  
  

• Comparison Arguments — Irrelevant Comparison / Apples vs. Oranges.
  
  

• Circular Reasoning — see above.
  
  

Universal Flaw Template (for the many “Flaw in Reasoning” questions)

When the LR prompt simply asks “What is the flaw?” the test usually expects a specific mapping — use this universal template to quickly diagnose and answer:

1. Tag the logical move: (e.g., correlation→causation; presumes representativeness; assumes no alternative cause; shifts meaning; illicit aggregate; affirms consequent.)
   
   

2. State the missing link / gap explicitly: “The argument assumes _____ without providing evidence.” (This becomes the NA.)
   
   

3. Show the most effective refutation: e.g., “If X were true, the conclusion would be undermined because…” (helps for Weaken/NA).
   
   

4. Map to formal fallacy if present (Affirming Consequent, Denying Antecedent, Circular, False Dilemma, etc.).
   
   

5. Predict correct answer language: “It assumes that no other factor could explain the correlation” / “it confuses correlation for causation” / “it treats a small/biased sample as representative.”
   
   

Typical language markers for flaws: “because”, “therefore”, “it follows that”, “since”, “thus”, statistical phrasing, causal verbs, “only if”, “unless”, modal verbs (“must”, “will”, “can”), comparative superlatives.

How to map Stimulus Type → Question Types (operational matrix)

• MC / Main Conclusion: Most argument stimuli (causal, conditional, generalization, value).
  
  

• Role / Role of Statement: Function-rich arguments (methods, recommendations, multi-premise).
  
  

• Point at Issue / Agreement / Dispute: Two-speaker stimuli, normative/descriptive contrast.
  
  

• Flaw in Reasoning / Parallel Flaw: Any flawed argument; universal template applies.
  
  

• Parallel Reasoning / Parallel Principle: Map the logical skeleton (conditional form, causal pattern, conditional fallacy, etc.).
  
  

• NA / Sufficient Assumption / Strengthen / Weaken: Most argument stimuli where conclusion depends on missing link — identify the missing link as NA; Sufficient Assumption will be an extra premise that guarantees the conclusion (strong wording); NA will be minimally required (weaker wording).
  
  

• Must Be True / Most Strongly Supported / Inference: Non-argument fact sets, paradox resolution options, or tightly supported conclusions.
  
  

• Resolve the Paradox / Explain the Phenomenon: Paradox stimuli.
  
  

• Principle Identify / Apply / Justify: Principle-based stimuli.
  
  

• Evaluate / Fill in the Blank / Complete the Passage: Often pragmatic/policy or where missing info is needed.
  
  

• Reasoning Conforms To: Where the argument structure matches a formal pattern or fallacy.
  
  

How the Correct vs Incorrect Options Tend To Be Worded (practical heuristics)

• Correct options: narrowly scoped, modality-matched (if stimulus hedges with “may” answers often read with “could/most likely”), directly address the gap or supply the missing link, often avoid absolute language unless stimulus is absolute. For NA specifically: statements framed as necessary links (“only if”, “must”, “required”, “is needed”) but not stronger than required. For Sufficient: answer will be strong and guaranteeing (“guarantees”, “ensures”, “sufficient to”).
  
  

• Incorrect options / distractors: overbroad (scope trap), irrelevant (surface-level similarity), reverse causation, internal contradictions, out-of-scope strengthening, slippery-slope or straw-man distortions, possibility vs certainty confusions. Also common are “new information” distractors that are true but irrelevant.
  
  

Practical, Tactical Summary (how to use this catalogue in drills)

1. Classify quickly: Is there a conclusion? If yes — argument stimulus. If no — treat as paradox/fact set/principle.
   
   

2. Spot the backbone: Identify conditional words, comparison words, percentage language, study/survey descriptors, or authority signals.
   
   

3. Ask the NA question: “What must be true for this inference to hold?” If you can state it, you’ve found the NA and likely the flaw.
   
   

4. Translate conditionals strictly: “If”, “only if”, “unless”, “only”, “necessarily”, “sufficient” — map to formal logic.
   
   

5. Watch for three classic traps: reverse causation, hidden third variables, and representativeness/sampling bias.
   
   

6. Predict answer form before scanning choices: this sharply improves accuracy.