The Loophole in the LSAT

Conclusion Indicators

Therefore

Accordingly

Consequently

So

That

Hence

It follows that

Certainty Power Players

Must & Cannot

Possibility Power Players

Could & Not Necessarily

In premises, certainty power players are strong or weak evidence?

Strong

In premises, possibility power players are strong or weak evidence

Weak

In conclusions, certainty power players are easy/difficult to prove

Difficult

In conclusions, possibility power players are easy/difficult to prove

Easy

“Must be true” =

Cannot be false

“Could be true” =

Not necessarily false

“Cannot be true” =

Must be false

“Not necessarily true” =

Could be false

Sufficient Condition Indicators

IF

When(ever)

Any(time)

All

Every(time)

In order to

People who

Necessary Condition Indicators

THEN

Must

Necessary

Required

Only (if)

Depends

Need to

Have (to)

Essential

Precondition

If the Sufficient Condition is present, what can be said of the Necessary Condition

MUST HAVE Necessary Condition

If the Necessary Condition in absent, what can be said of the Sufficient Condition?

Cannot have Sufficient Condition

If the Sufficient Condition is absent, what can be said of the Necessary Condition?

NOTHING

If the Necessary Condition is present, what can be said of the Sufficient Condition?

NOTHING

Contrapositive of SC → NC

-NC → -SC

L → M, M → N, then?

L → N &

-N → -M → -L

Exclusion Indicators

No

Never

Nobody

None

Sufficient Assumption

Proves conclusion 100%

SA Keywords

Will

Always

Everything

Necessary Assumption

If the conclusion is true, NA must be true

Is SA powerful or provable?

Powerful

Is NA powerful or provable?

Provable

Is SA boring or not boring?

NOT boring

Is NA boring or not boring?

Boring

Loophole

Worst case scenario

-NA

Dangling Variable

New words in conclusion that aren’t in premise

Secret Value Judgement

Author gets judgy in conclusion

Secret Downside

When two things are compared to say one is better without the full story

Assumed Universal Goals

Something the author assumes everyone would want

Causal Reasoning Indicators

Cause

Produced by

Leads to

Effect

Responsible for

Factor

The Omitted Options

NO relationship

Causation is backwards

New factor causing one or both factors

Bad Conditional Reasoning Flaw AC Example

Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation for something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation

Bad Conditional Reasoning Flaw AC Keywords

necessary / precondition / required

sufficient / enough / ensure

Bad Causal Reasoning Flaw AC Example

Mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon

Bad Causal Reasoning Flaw AC Keywords

effect / result & cause / causal

two things occur in conjunction

one thing happens after another

Whole-to-Part / Part-to-Whole Flaw AC Example

Assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself

Whole-to-Part / Part-to-Whole Flaw AC Keywords

individual member of a group

parts of a whole

group as a whole

Overgeneralization Flaw AC Example

makes a sweeping generalization…based on evidence drawn from a limited number of atypical cases

Overgeneralization Flaw AC Keywords

generalizing illegitimately

few instances to all instances

particular case / atypical cases

Survey Problems Flaw AC Example

uses evidence drawn from a small sample that may well be unrepresentative

Survey Problems Flaw AC Keywords

small / biased / unrepresentative sample

Possibility ≠ Certainty Flaw AC Example

Confuses an absence of evidence for a hypothesis with the existence against the hypothesis

Possibility ≠ Certainty Flaw AC Keywords

merely possible…actual

probably true…certainty

has not been shown…not true

False Dichotomy Flaw AC Example

assumes without warrant that a situation only allows two possibilities

False Dichotomy Flaw AC Keywords

excludes alternative explanation

only two possibilities

Straw Man Flaw AC Example

misdescribing the … position, thereby making it easy to challenge

Straw Man Flaw AC Keywords

misdescribes

easier to challenge

Ad Hominem Flaw AC Example

rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself

Ad Hominem Flaw AC Keywords

impugns / questions / attacks

character / motives of proponents

source argument

Circular Reasoning Flaw AC Example

presupposes what it sets out to prove

Circular Reasoning Flaw AC Keywords

presupposes what it seeks to establish

restates claim / conclusion

Equivocation Flaw AC Example

relies on two difference uses of the term

Equivocation Flaw AC Keywords

term / word in two senses

imprecise / ambiguous / vague

Appeal Fallacies Flaw AC Example

cites the evidence … in direct support of a claim that lies outside their area of expertise

Appeal Fallacies Flaw AC Keywords

appeal to / cites

outside area of expertise

Irrelevant! Flaw AC Example

uses irrelevant facts to justify a claim

Irrelevant! Flaw AC Keywords

irrelevant / not relevant

Percentages ≠ Numbers Flaw AC Example

takes no account of the relative frequency of … in the population as a whole

Percentages ≠ Numbers Flaw AC Keywords

percentages / absolute numbers

relative frequency

CLIR

Controversy → Debate

Loophole → Argument

Inference → Premise Set

Resolution → Paradox

Argument

Conclusion supported by premise

Premise Set

No conclusion, premises don’t contradict

Sometimes blank at the end

Paradox

No conclusion, premises contradict

Debate

Two Speakers

Powerful Question Types

Strengthen, Weaken, SA, Counter, Contradiction, Evaluate, Resolution

Powerful Questions Keywords

All

Every

None

Never

Only

Required

Always

Provable Question Types

Conclusion, Inference, Most Strongly Supported, Fill In, Controversy, NA, Method, Argument Part, Classic Flaw, Loophole Flaw, Principle Conform, Parallel Reasoning, Parallel Flaw

Provable Question Keywords

Could

Can

(at least) Some

At least one

Tend to

Usually

Not all

Varies

Possible

Not Necessarily

Possibly

Sometimes

May

Answer to Strengthen Questions

Most powerful thing to help argument’s conclusion

Strengthen Question Back-Up Plan

Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true?

Strengthen Question Keywords

strengthen

most helps to + justify / strengthen / support

Answer to Weaken Questions

Most powerful thing you can find to destroy the argument’s conclusion

Weak Question Back-Up Plan

Does this make the conclusion less likely to be true

Weak Question Keywords

weaken

most undermines the conclusion

Answer to Sufficient Assumption (SA)

Most powerful thing you can find to prove the conclusion 100% valid

Sufficient Assumption Back-Up Plan

If this is true, is the argument 100% valid?

Sufficient Assumption Keywords

enable the conclusion to be properly drawn / the conclusion follows logically if

justify the conclusion

Answer to Counter Questions

Most powerful thing Speaker 1 could say to destroy Speaker 2’s argument

Counter Question Back-Up Plan

Is this something Speaker 1 would say and does it hurt Speaker 2’s argument

Counter Questions Back-Up Plan

counter

in response to

Answer to Contradiction Questions

Thing that contradicts literal words from the stimulus

Contradiction Question Back-Up Plan

Does this contradict the stimulus?

Contradiction Question Keywords

cannot be true

violate the principle

could be true EXCEPT

Answer to Evaluate Question

Powerful pop quiz for the argument’s validity

Evaluate Questions Back-Up Plan

Is this crucial for argument’s validity

Evaluate Questions Keywords

evaluate the argument

most helpful to know / relevant to evaluating

Answer to Resolution Questions

Most powerful thing to make Paradox make sense

Resolution Question Back-Up Plan

Does this make the the Paradox make sense?

Resolution Questions Keywords

most helps to + explain / resolve / account for

discrepancy / paradox / surprising result

Conclusion Question Answer

Provable translation of the conclusion

Conclusion Question Back-Up Plan

Is this a translation of the conclusion?

Conclusion Question Keywords

main point

main conclusion

Inference Question Answer

Thing you can prove definitely must be true

Inference Back-Up Plan

Does this have to be true?

Inference Question Answer

must be true / follows logically

inference

properly inferred / properly be concluded / properly drawn

Most Strongly Supported (MSS) Answer

Thing you can prove is very, very, very likely to be true

Most Strongly Supported (MSS) Back-Up Plan

Does this pretty much have to be true?