LSAT Stimulus, Loophole, Question, and Answer Types

bad conditional reasoning

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 loophole

What if we actually have to follow the rules of conditional reasoning?

bad causal reasoning

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

bad causal reasoning loophole

What if one of the Omitted Options is the case?

whole-to-part

when someone says that what is true of something as whole, must also be true of each of its parts

whole-to-part loophole

What if wholes don't necessarily equal parts?

part-to-whole

when someone tries to say that what is true of part of something must also be true of the whole thing together

part-to-whole loophole

What if parts don't necessarily equal wholes?

overgeneralization

taking a premise about one thing and generalizing it to many other things

overgeneralization loophole

What if we can't generalize from this one thing to a bunch of other things?

survey problems

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

survey problems loophole

What if the sample was biased, the questions were biased, there are other contradictory surveys, people lie on surveys, or the sample is too small?

false starts

assumes that the two groups are same in all respects except the ones called out as part of the study

false starts loophole

What if the two groups were different in a key respect?

possibility =/= certainty

confuses an absence of evidence for a hypothesis with the existence of evidence against the hypothesis/confuses a existence of evidence for a hypothesis with the absence of evidence against the hypothesis

possibility =/= certainty loophole

What if lack of evidence =/= evidence of lacking?

What if proof of evidence =/= evidence of proof?

implication

combines opinion and fact - someone believes something, there's a fact about the belief, they must believe that fact as well

implication loophole

What if the person in question isn't aware of what their belief implies?

false dichotomy

Consists of a consideration of only the two extremes when there are one or more intermediate possibilities

false dichotomy loophole

What if there are more than just two options?

straw man

A fallacy that occurs when a speaker chooses a deliberately poor or oversimplified example in order to ridicule and refute an idea

straw man loophole

What if what they said has nothing to do with the claim they're pretending to respond to?

ad hominem

An argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack.

ad hominem loophole

What if this person's character/motivation doesn't affect the truth?

circular reasoning

assuming your claim is already proven, and then using the "proven" claim to support itself

circular reasoning loophole

What if we can't use the conclusion as evidence for itself?

equivocation

changing the definition of a term in the middle of an argument

equivocation loophole

What if we shouldn't let words change in meaning?

appeal fallacies

invalid appeal to authority/invalid appeal to public opinion

appeal fallacies loophole

What if this opinion doesn't equal evidence of fact?

irrelevant

premise is entirely unrelated to the conclusion

irrelevant loophole

What if the premises and conclusion have nothing to do with each other?

percents =/= numbers

rising # = rising %

percents =/= numbers loophole

What if group size doesn't stay the same?

C in CLIR

controversy, corresponds with debate

L in CLIR

loophole, corresponds with argument

I in CLIR

inference, corresponds with premise set

R in CLIR

resolution, corresponds with paradox

Debate

two people speaking

Argument

conclusion supported by premises

Premise Set

no conclusion, premises do not contradict

paradox

no conclusion, premises contradict

weaken

find the most powerful answer that points to a weakness exposed by the loophole

strengthen

find the most powerful answer that patches the hole exposed by the loophole

sufficient assumption

powerful answer that completely remedies the hole the loophole exposes

counter

attack the loophole in the second argument through the mindset of the first speaker

contradiction

choose the contradictory answer

evaluate

find something that asks if the loophole is true

resolution

make the paradox make sense

conclusion

the argument's main conclusion

inference

what you can definitely prove to be true

most strongly support

95-100% true

fill in

prove what completes the thought

controversy

what the two speakers disagree over

agreement

what the two speakers agree about

necessary assumption

a provable description of what must be true if the conclusion is true

method

a provable description of what happened in the stimulus

argument part

a provable description of what the phrase is doing in the argument

classic flaw

a provable description of what the argument did wrong

loophole flaw

a provable description of how the argument overlooked your Loophole

best way

Red flag: literally uses the words "best way" or a Best Way keyword.

important

Red flag: identifies something as 'important' or an important key word

crazy nonsense

Red flag: has nothing to do with anything in the stimulus

grouped extreme

Red flag: centers on the most extreme part of the group in the stimulus

almost

Red flag: right except for one word or phrase wrong

opposite claim

Red flag: centers on the opposite of the argument's conclusion

dormant conditionals

Red flag: never activated by the premise in the stimulus

comparatives and absolutes

Mismatches comparatives and absolutes between the stimulus and the answer choices

strong answer

Powerful: contain bold language and certainty power players

stepladder

Powerful: outlines a directly proportional relationship between two things

powerful conditionals

Powerful: a conditional that connects premises to the conclusion or other premises

grouped opposite

Powerful: centers on the opposite of the group discussed in the stimulus.

weak answers

Provable: contains flexible language and possibility power players

provable conditionals

Provable: a conditional that reads a chain from the stimulus or states a necessary assumption

certainty power players

Must, cannot (powerful)

possibility power players

Could, not necessarily (provable)

dangling variables

New words that appear in the conclusion and not in the premises.

secret value judgments

The author just can't assume a convenient definition of loaded words in their conclusion without identifying those words in the premises.

secret downsides

The author compares two things and says one of them is superior without giving you the full story.

assumed universal goals

Things that the author assumes that everyone would want.

omitted options

1. What if there's no relationship here at all?

2. What if the causation is backwards?

3. What if a new factor caused one or both of these things?

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

• 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.

Designing Resolutions

• 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

Strengthen key words

which of the following, if true

strengthen

most helps to +justify/strengthen/support

Weaken key words

Which of the following, if true

weaken

most undermines the conclusion

most vulnerable

count as evidence against

calls into question

Sufficient assumption key words

which of the following, if true/ assumed

enable the conclusion to be properly drawn/justify the conclusion

the conclusion follows logically if

Counter key words

which one of the following, if true

counter

in response to

Contradiction key words

if the statements above are true

must be false

cannot be true

violate the principle

could be true EXCEPT

Evaluate key words

the answer to which of the following questions

which of the following, if true

evaluate + the argument/ the conclusion

most helpful to know/ relevant to evaluating

Resolution key words

which one of the following, if true

most helps to + explain/ resolve/ account for

discrepancy / paradox/ conflict/ surprising result

Conclusion key words

main point

main conclusion

Inference key words

if the statement above is true/ from the statements above

must be true/ follows logically

inference

properly inferred/ properly be concluded/ properly drawn