Stem sprint LR

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Type: Weaken → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this make the conclusion less likely to be true?

Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the researcher's conclusion?

Type: Weaken → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this make the conclusion less likely to be true?

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the columnist's reasoning?

Type: Weaken → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this make the conclusion less likely to be true?

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Type: Strengthen → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true?

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the scientist's hypothesis?

Type: Strengthen → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true?

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to justify the politician's position?

Type: Strengthen → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true?

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument EXCEPT:

Type: Strengthen EXCEPT → Powerful · Backup plan: 4 answers DO make the conclusion more likely → pick the one that doesn't (it weakens or is irrelevant)

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Type: Sufficient Assumption → Powerful · Backup plan: If this is true, is the argument 100% valid?

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

Type: Sufficient Assumption → Powerful · Backup plan: If this is true, is the argument 100% valid?

The argument's conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

Type: Sufficient Assumption → Powerful · Backup plan: If this is true, is the argument 100% valid?

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly counters Ramirez's response to Chen?

Type: Counter → Powerful · Backup plan: Is this something the first speaker would say, and does it hurt the second speaker's argument?

Which one of the following, if true, would give Lee the strongest counter to Kim's objection?

Type: Counter → Powerful · Backup plan: Is this something the first speaker would say, and does it hurt the second speaker's argument?

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be false?

Type: Contradiction → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this contradict the stimulus?

If the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?

Type: Contradiction → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this contradict the stimulus?

If the statements above are true, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

Type: Contradiction → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this contradict the stimulus? (the one that can't be true = correct)

The answer to which one of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the argument?

Type: Evaluate → Powerful · Backup plan: Is this crucial for the argument's validity?

Which one of the following would it be most relevant to investigate in evaluating the argument?

Type: Evaluate → Powerful · Backup plan: Is this crucial for the argument's validity?

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

Type: Resolution → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this make the paradox make sense?

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising result?

Type: Resolution → Powerful · Backup plan: Does this make the paradox make sense?

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help to reconcile the conflicting findings?

Type: Resolution EXCEPT → Powerful · Backup plan: 4 answers DO make the paradox make sense → pick the one that doesn't

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Type: Conclusion → Provable · Backup plan: Is this a translation of the conclusion?

Which one of the following most accurately states the overall conclusion drawn in the editorial?

Type: Conclusion → Provable · Backup plan: Is this a translation of the conclusion?

The main point of the argument is that

Type: Conclusion → Provable · Backup plan: Is this a translation of the conclusion?

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Type: Inference → Provable · Backup plan: Does this have to be true?

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

Type: Inference → Provable · Backup plan: Does this have to be true?

Which one of the following follows logically from the statements above?

Type: Inference → Provable · Backup plan: Does this have to be true?

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

Type: Most Strongly Supported → Provable · Backup plan: Does this pretty much have to be true?

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

Type: Most Strongly Supported → Provable · Backup plan: Does this pretty much have to be true?

The information above provides the most support for which one of the following?

Type: Most Strongly Supported → Provable · Backup plan: Does this pretty much have to be true?

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

Type: Fill In → Provable · Backup plan: Does this have to be true?

Which one of the following most logically completes the passage?

Type: Fill In → Provable · Backup plan: Does this have to be true?

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Ana and Ben disagree over whether

Type: Controversy → Provable · Backup plan: Does the first speaker have to believe this is true/false? Does the second speaker have to believe the opposite?

Which one of the following is the point at issue between Nguyen and Park?

Type: Controversy → Provable · Backup plan: Does the first speaker have to believe this is true/false? Does the second speaker have to believe the opposite?

Ortiz and Walsh are committed to disagreeing about which one of the following?

Type: Controversy → Provable · Backup plan: Does the first speaker have to believe this is true/false? Does the second speaker have to believe the opposite?

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Ana and Ben agree that

Type: Agreement → Provable · Backup plan: Does the first speaker have to believe this? Does the second speaker have to believe this?

Nguyen's and Park's statements provide the most support for holding that they would both agree with which one of the following?

Type: Agreement → Provable · Backup plan: Does the first speaker have to believe this? Does the second speaker have to believe this?

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Type: Necessary Assumption → Provable · Backup plan: If the conclusion is true, does this have to be true?

The argument requires assuming which one of the following?

Type: Necessary Assumption → Provable · Backup plan: If the conclusion is true, does this have to be true?

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

Type: Necessary Assumption → Provable · Backup plan: If the conclusion is true, does this have to be true?

The argument proceeds by

Type: Method → Provable · Backup plan: Did this happen?

Which one of the following most accurately describes the technique of reasoning employed by the argument?

Type: Method → Provable · Backup plan: Did this happen?

The critic responds to the author's claim by

Type: Method → Provable · Backup plan: Did this happen?

The claim that the city's budget is sound plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

Type: Argument Part → Provable · Backup plan: Is this what the phrase is doing?

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that most voters favor the plan?

Type: Argument Part → Provable · Backup plan: Is this what the phrase is doing?

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

Type: Classic Flaw → Provable · Backup plan: Is this what's wrong with the argument?

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning?

Type: Classic Flaw → Provable · Backup plan: Is this what's wrong with the argument?

The reasoning above is questionable because it

Type: Classic Flaw → Provable · Backup plan: Is this what's wrong with the argument?

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it overlooks the possibility that

Type: Loophole Flaw → Provable · Backup plan: Was it bad that the argument overlooked this?

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument fails to consider that

Type: Loophole Flaw → Provable · Backup plan: Was it bad that the argument overlooked this?

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it presumes, without providing justification, that

Type: Loophole Flaw → Provable · Backup plan: Was it bad that the argument overlooked this?

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle above?

Type: Principle Conform (principle → example) → Provable · Backup plan: Does this example color inside the principle's lines?

The situation described above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?

Type: Principle Conform (example → principle) → Provable · Backup plan: Does this principle draw the lines that support the example's judgment?

Which one of the following most closely illustrates the principle that the passage illustrates?

Type: Principle Conform (example → example) → Provable · Backup plan: Do both examples fit the same principle?

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?

Type: TRAP: says "principle" but it's Strengthen → Powerful · Backup plan: "most helps to justify" = Strengthen keywords. Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true? (your tip: never assume "principle" means Principle Conform)

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?

Type: Parallel Reasoning → Provable · Backup plan: Does this match the skeleton?

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

Type: Parallel Reasoning → Provable · Backup plan: Does this match the skeleton?

The flawed pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?

Type: Parallel Flaw → Provable · Backup plan: Same skeleton AND same flaw?

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning above?

Type: Parallel Flaw → Provable · Backup plan: Same skeleton AND same flaw?

Any LR stem: the 2 questions

1) What does "if true" / "if assumed" describe?
- the answer ("Which of the following, if true...") → ADD the answer to the stim: Strengthen, Weaken, SA, Counter, Resolution
- the stimulus ("If the statements above are true...") → PULL the answer out of the stim: Inference, MSS, Contradiction
- no "if" → DESCRIBE or IDENTIFY: Conclusion, NA, Method, Arg Part, Flaw, Controversy, Agreement, Parallel, Principle Conform
- exception: Evaluate has no "if" but still adds info. Catch it by "evaluate" or "most useful to know"
2) THE conclusion or A conclusion?
- THE author's conclusion + "follows if assumed" → SA
- a NEW conclusion ("which conclusion can be drawn") → Inference

A) The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
B) Which one of the following follows logically from the statements above?

A) SA: follows logically IF assumed. The answer gets added to prove THE author's conclusion.
B) Inference: follows logically FROM the statements. You pull a new conclusion out of the stim.
IF = SA. FROM = Inference.

If the information above is correct, which one of the following conclusions can be drawn on the basis of it?

Inference
"If...correct" describes the stimulus, and "conclusions can be drawn" means a new one you make.
Backup plan: does this have to be true?

Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly inferred?

SA
"If assumed" sits on the answer, and it's about "the conclusion above."
"Inferred" is a trap word here.
Backup plan: if this is true, is the argument 100% valid?

A) Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument?
B) The information above provides the most support for which one of the following?

A) Strengthen: "if true" sits on the answer. The answer supports the argument.
B) MSS: the stimulus supports the answer. Pull it out.
Same words, opposite direction. Ask who's supporting whom.

A) Which one of the following, if true, most strongly counters Diaz's response to Okafor?
B) Diaz and Okafor disagree over whether
C) If the statements above are true, which one of the following must be false?

A) Counter: "if true" on the answer + counter/respond. Add what the first speaker would fire back at the second.
B) Controversy: disagree / point at issue / committed to disagreeing. No "if." Prove what they disagree about.
C) Contradiction: "if the statements above are true" + must be false / cannot be true / could be true EXCEPT. The stim is fact, and the answer breaks it.

A) Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
B) If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

A) NA: no "if." Necessary words: depends on, requires, relies on, does not follow unless.
Backup plan: if the conclusion is true, does this have to be true? Negate your loophole.
B) Inference: "if true" describes the stimulus.
Backup plan: does this have to be true?
Both are provable and both live in the necessary condition. NA is the inference for arguments: it hangs on the conclusion. Inference only needs the stim to be true.

A) Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?
B) The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?

A) Strengthen: "if valid" on the answer + "helps to justify."
B) Principle Conform: "conforms." Match the rule to the example.
The word "principle" doesn't decide the type. The verb does.

A) The argument proceeds by
B) The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
C) The claim that rents will rise plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

A) Method: what the argument DID. Did this happen?
B) Flaw: what it did WRONG. Is this what's wrong with the argument?
C) Arg Part: one quoted phrase. What job does it do (premise, conclusion, intermediate conclusion)?

Classic Flaw vs Loophole Flaw: how to tell

Same stems ("most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that"). The answer choices decide.
- Classic: general flaw-chart language. "mistakes a correlation for causation," "attacks the source instead of the claim"
- Loophole: specific to THIS stim + a prefix: fails to consider / overlooks the possibility that / takes for granted / presumes without justification
For Loophole Flaw, find your loophole first, then look for it written with a prefix.

The new phone has the fastest processor on the market. So it's the best phone for college students.

Loophole Flaw: dangling variable ("fastest processor" vs "best for college students")
What if speed isn't what makes a phone best for students?
AC: "presumes without justification that processor speed is what makes a phone best for students"

Reality shows exaggerate how people behave. So watching them is morally wrong.

Loophole Flaw: secret value judgment ("morally wrong")
What if watching something exaggerated isn't immoral?
AC: "takes for granted that watching exaggerated depictions of behavior is morally wrong"

Switching to a four-day work week cut the office's electricity bill by 20%. So the company should make the four-day week permanent.

Loophole Flaw: secret downside
What if the four-day week has a downside that outweighs the savings, like lower output?
AC: "fails to consider that the four-day week may have drawbacks that outweigh the savings"

This app helps users fall asleep 15 minutes faster. So everyone with a smartphone should download it.

Loophole Flaw: assumed universal goal
What if some people don't want or need to fall asleep faster?
AC: "takes for granted that everyone wants to fall asleep faster"

Students who eat breakfast get higher grades than students who don't. So eating breakfast improves grades.

Omitted option (causal)
What if something else, like more sleep or a stable home, causes both?
Loophole Flaw AC: "overlooks the possibility that some other factor accounts for both eating breakfast and higher grades"
Classic Flaw AC: "infers a causal relationship from a mere correlation"
Same stim, two ways to write the flaw.

Anyone who passes the bar exam studied for months. Tasha studied for months, so she'll pass the bar.

Bad Conditional Reasoning
Passes → studied. Tasha has the necessary condition, which proves nothing.
AC: "mistakes something necessary for passing for something that guarantees passing"

Neighborhoods with more coffee shops have higher rents. So coffee shops drive rents up.

Bad Causal Reasoning
Could be backwards (high rents attract coffee shops) or a third factor.
AC: "infers a causal relationship from a correlation"

The orchestra is world-class. So its tuba player must be world-class.

Whole-to-Part
Group quality → member quality.
AC: "assumes that what's true of a group as a whole is true of each of its members"

Every brick in the wall is light. So the wall is light.

Part-to-Whole
Member quality → whole quality.
AC: "assumes that because something is true of each of the parts, it's true of the whole"

The two Lincoln High students I tutored both struggled with algebra. So Lincoln High's math program is weak.

Overgeneralization
Two cases → the whole program.
AC: "draws a general conclusion from a few cases that may not be typical"

An online poll on a hiking website found that 85% of respondents want more trail funding. So most city residents want more trail funding.

Survey Problems
People on a hiking site aren't a representative sample of residents.
AC: "relies on a sample that is likely unrepresentative"

No study has shown that the new diet works. So it doesn't work.

Possibility ≠ Certainty
No proof it works ≠ proof it doesn't.
AC: "treats a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence that the claim is false"

Either we raise ticket prices or the theater closes. We won't let it close, so prices are going up.

False Dichotomy
Other options exist: cut costs, sponsors, fundraising.
AC: "assumes without warrant that only two options exist"

Councilmember Ruiz wants to cut the police overtime budget. But a city with no police would fall into chaos, so we should reject her plan.

Straw Man
She proposed cutting overtime, not eliminating the police.
AC: "distorts the councilmember's position, making it easier to reject"

Dr. Lee says the drug is safe, but Dr. Lee has consulted for the company that makes it. So the drug isn't safe.

Ad Hominem
Her motive says nothing about whether the drug is safe.
AC: "attacks the source's motives instead of addressing the claim"

Maya is the most honest candidate because none of the others is as truthful as she is.

Circular Reasoning
"Most honest" and "none is as truthful" say the same thing.
AC: "presupposes what it sets out to prove"

Laws of nature can't be broken. The speed limit is a law. So the speed limit can't be broken.

Equivocation
"Law" shifts from law of nature to legal rule.
AC: "relies on two different senses of the word 'law'"

A famous actor says this retirement fund is the safest investment available. So it's the safest investment available.

Appeal Fallacy
An actor isn't a finance expert.
AC: "relies on the opinion of someone outside their area of expertise"

The senator has two law degrees and speaks three languages. So her healthcare bill will lower costs.

Irrelevant
Her credentials say nothing about the bill's effect on costs.
AC: "uses facts that don't bear on the conclusion"

Online orders rose from 30% to 50% of the store's sales this year. So the store sold more online this year.

Percentages ≠ Numbers
If total sales fell by more than 40%, online sales actually went down.
AC: "takes no account of the possibility that total sales decreased"

Students who took the summer prep course scored higher on the fall test than students who didn't. So the course raises scores.

False Starts
Assumes the two groups were alike except for the course. Maybe the students who signed up were more motivated to begin with.
AC: "fails to consider that the two groups may differ in ways other than taking the course"

Ms. Hart believes any food with artificial dye is unsafe. The soup she serves contains artificial dye. So Ms. Hart believes the soup she serves is unsafe.

Implication
She may not know the soup has dye.
AC: "assumes a person believes what follows from her beliefs, even though she may be unaware of a relevant fact"