The Loophole in the LSAT

What are the four types of stimuli?

● Arguments
● Premise Sets
● Debates
● Paradoxes

Every answer is either...?

Powerful or Provable

Specifier Key Words

● by
● since
● as
● if
● in
● in addition to
● because
● after
● on
● that
● of
● around
● which
● for
● although
● between
● until
● when
● while
● who

List both sides of CLIR

Debate (Two speakers)→ Controversy
Argument (Premises and conclusions)→ Loophole
Premise Set (Non-contradictory premises)→ Resolution
Paradox (Contradictory premises)→ Resolution

List the Premise Indicators

● Because
● For
● Since
● As
● Given that

List the Conclusion Indicators

● Therefore
● Thus
● Accordingly
● Hence
● Consequently
● It follows that
● So

Equivalence of Could

Not Necessarily

Equivalence of Must

Cannot

Negation of Must

Not Necessarily

Negation of Could

Cannot

List the Necessary Indicators

● Then
● Must
● Necessary
● Required
● Only (if)
● Depends
● Need (to)
● Have to
● Essential
● Precondition

How do you diagram AND/OR conditionals?

Vertically

How do you diagram IF AND ONLY IF?

With a double must arrow

List the Causal Indicators

● Cause
● Produced by
● Leads to
● Effect
● Responsible for
● Factor
● Product

List the Omitted Options (Causal)

● No relationship (No relationship)
● Backwards causation (B causes A)
● New factor causing one or both (C causes B or both A and B)

List the sixteen Classic Flaws

-Bad Conditional Reasoning
-Bad Causal Reasoning
-Whole-to-Part & Part-to-Whole
-Over-generalization
-Survey Problems
-False Starts
-Possibility ≠ Certainty
-Implication
-False Dichotomy
-Straw Man
-Ad Hominem
-Circular Reasoning
-Equivocation
-Appeal Fallacies
-Irrelevant!
-Percentages ≠ Numbers

Bad Conditional Reasoning

Reads the conditionals supplied in the premise incorrectly.
Ex. Premise(s): wild horse→ adventurous sort→ thrill of new;
Conclusion: thrill of new→ wild horse (reverses conditional without negating).

Bad Causal Reasoning

Fails to account for Omitted Options (No relationship, backwards causation, and new factor causing one or both)

Whole-to-Part & Part-to-Whole

Assuming that a property/trait of a part is shared by the whole or vice versa.

Overgeneralization

Making an assumption about an entire category based on one member of the category.

Survey Problems

● Biased sample
● Biased questions
● Survey liars (people lying on the survey)
● Small sample size
● Other contradictory survey results

False Starts

An assumption that the two groups being compared are the same in all respects except the one(s) called out as part of the study. Cured by statements like "We tested two large and diverse groups of active and sedentary participants. The groups were similar in all relevant respects except exercise regimen."

Possibility ≠ Certainty

Evidence for/against something does not prove it must be true/false; a lack of ability to prove something is true/false does not mean it cannot be true/false. Lack of evidence ≠ evidence of lacking. Proof of evidence ≠ evidence of proof.

Implication

Assumes that someone believes/knows a logical implication of another belief.
Ex. An individual believes the sun has more mass than the moon. The more mass an object has, the more gravity it exerts. That individual believes the sun exerts more gravity than the moon.

False Dichotomy

Artificially limits choices by either limiting a spectrum (often ignoring the ability to not move across the spectrum e.g. you must move up or down) or limiting options (listing a few options and assuming those are the only possible options).

Straw Man

Responding to a weakened position, as opposed to what the original position is.

Ad Hominem

Insulting the proponent of a position and using that as a rationale for challenging the truth of the position itself.

Circular Reasoning

An argument that relies on itself for validity. Often includes repetition between premises and conclusions.

Equivocation

Changing the meaning of a word or phrase throughout an argument.

Appeal Fallacies

Appealing to a non-expert opinion (non-expert for the given topic) or public opinion.

Irrelevant!

When the premises and conclusion are entirely disjunct.

Percentages ≠ Numbers

Claims about numbers based on percentages or percentages based on numbers without information about group size and its fluctuation.

List the steps to Outlining on CLIR

Read the stimulus.
Bracket the beginning and end of each argument part.
Label each argument part to the side of the stimulus. Conclusion: C
Intermediate Conclusion: IC
Premise P1
Premise 2: P2
Premise 3: P3

Designing Loopholes

• Translate stimulus.
• Identify your conclusion.
• Say, "What if...[why maybe not true]"
• Check answers for answer matching predicted Loophole.

Designing Inferences

• Translate stimulus.
• Find the interlocking point(s).
• Predict a basic, safe conclusion which relies on the exact wording of the stimulus.
a. If the premise set is conditional, chain the statements together for the automatic Inference.
• Check answers for answer matching predicted Inference.

Designing Controversies (Advanced Inferences)

• Controversy: Disagreement over whether something (Controversy) is true.
• Translate stimulus.
• Take an inference from the second speaker's statements.
a. Add up the second speaker's premises (and conclusion, if there is one) to connect them to the first speaker. This is your Second Speaker Inference (SSI).
b. The goal is to finish the second speaker's point. Make it explicit. Try putting "therefore" before the conclusion.
• Stick a "whether" in front of your SSI and smooth out the language.
• Check answers for answer matching predicted Controversy.

• Focus on what the second speaker is saying. They are doing the disagreeing.
• Make it specific.
• Don't assume the second speaker is always disagreeing with the first speaker's conclusion.
• Always use the background information from the first speaker for your SSI.

• Short-handing controversy
• Make the SSI. Often NOT [something speaker 1 said].
• Bracket the offending statement from speaker 1.
• Draw a line straight to it from the speaker 2.
• X out that line to note the disagreement.

Designing Resolutions (Advanced Loopholes)

• Designed in response to a paradox.
• Translate stimulus.
• What would make this all make sense? Even if the Resolution is powerful. It just has to make sense.
• Split up the two contradictory premises and put a Resolution in the middle.
a. PREMISE 1, but RESOLUTION, so PREMISE 2.
• Fill in the Resolution with something that makes PREMISE 1 naturally lead to PREMISE 2.
• You don't have to prove a Valid Argument; it just has to make sense.

List all the Powerful question types

● Strengthen
● Weaken
● Sufficient Assumption
● Counter
● Contradiction
● Evaluate
● Resolution

List all the Powerful answer words

● all
● every
● none
● never
● only
● required
● every time
● always

What in CLIR is Powerful?

● Loophole
● Resolution

List the Provable question types

● Conclusion
● Inference
● Most Strongly Supported
● Fill In
● Controversy
● Agreement
● Necessary Assumption
● Method
● Argument Part
● Classic Flaw
● Loophole Flaw
● Principle Conform
● Parallel Reasoning
● Parallel Flaw

List the Provable answer words

● could
● usually
● can
● possible
● (at least) some
● not necessarily
● (at least) one
● possibly
● tend to
● sometimes
● not all
● may
● varies

What in CLIR is Provable?

● Inference
● Controversy

List the Red Flag answer choices

-Dormant Conditionals
-Comparatives & Absolutes
-Allllmost
-Grouped Extreme
-Important
-Crazy Nonsense
-Best Way

What are Best Way answers?

· Best way uses the words "best way" or a similar phrase/word.
· It is neither powerful not provable. We don't know why it is the best and we would have a tough time proving it was.
· Key words equivalents: most efficient, most effective, least harmful, least damaging ([superlative] + [value judgement]).
· When the stimulus prompts you for "the best way," it's acceptable.

What are Important answers?

· Important identifies something as "important" or an important key work.
· Not powerful because it makes no claim as to why something is important. Not provable because it is too vague, lacking a universal definition.
· Key word equivalents: primary, primarily, foremost, crucial, critical, imperative paramount, significant, pressing, vital (often followed by "factor")
· Only choose an answer if important is explicitly mentioned in the stimulus.

What are Grouped Extreme answers?

· Answers which discuss a minority part of a larger group with some extreme quality.
· These extreme groups rarely have any impact on the anything else.

What are Opposite Claim answers?

· An opposite claim flips the arguments conclusion and makes a claim about the inverse (remember contrapositives and the like).

What are Comparative and Absolute answers?

· A comparative states the relationship between two or more things, while absolutes attaches an adjective to a thing. If not expressly established in the stimulus, the two cannot mix.
o Ex.: Jane is a great painter→ Jane is a better painter than Tim (or vice versa)
· Comparative key words: more, less, better, worse, -er endings
· Acceptable answer if a comparative answer in the loophole underlining relevant differences.