LSAT Logical Reasoning Foundations

A set of vocabulary flashcards based on the LSAT Logical Reasoning lecture notes, covering argument parts, conclusion types, and question strategies.

Stimulus

The text where the argument or information that forms the basis for answering the question is found; it may contain one or more arguments.

Question / Task

The text found beneath the stimulus that poses a specific question, such as asking for a necessary assumption or what must be true.

Main Conclusion

A claim expressing what the arguer is trying to persuade the audience to accept; it is supported by other statements and does not support any other claims within the argument.

Evidence

Also known as premises or support, these are statements provided to show that the conclusion is true.

Sub-conclusion

Also known as a subsidiary or intermediate conclusion, this is a claim that is supported by other statements but also serves as support for the main conclusion.

Background

A statement that provides contextual information but does not play a functional role within the logical argument.

Causation

A type of conclusion where one event, action, or phenomenon is claimed to directly affect another.

Assessments

A conclusion type where the arguer assigns a subjective attribute to something, such as 'The flower is beautiful' vs. a scientific fact.

Recommendations

A conclusion that asserts a best method or course of action, often signaled by keywords like 'should' or 'ought to'.

Predictions

An assertion of the arguer's opinion about something that will take place in the near or distant future.

Simple Beliefs

Plain claims that the arguer believes to be true but do not fall under the categories of comparisons, assessments, recommendations, or predictions.

Definite Conclusions

Also known as categorical conclusions, these are signaled by words like 'every', 'all', 'none', 'never', and 'will', indicating 100% or 0% certainty.

Indefinite Conclusions

Also known as qualified conclusions, these indicate something isn't necessarily true 100% or 0% of the time, often using words like 'likely', 'some', 'often', or 'possible'.

Analogy

Evidence that describes a similar but unrelated situation as support for a conclusion.

Counterexamples

Specific examples used to refute or 'counter' a generalization made by another arguer.

Conditional Relationships

Absolute true/false relationships between ideas where if one is true, the other must be true ($A \rightarrow B$).

Entailment

Also known as a deduction or implication, this is a statement that must be true given that the statements in the stimulus are true.

Identify the Technique

A question type asking to describe the structure or method of reasoning used to justify a conclusion.

Identify the Role

A question type that asks to describe the specific function a statement plays in an argument, such as whether it is a premise, conclusion, or sub-conclusion.

Identify the Principle

A task requiring the identification of an underlying rule or value that justifies or is illustrated by an argument or situation.

Flaw

A reasoning error or defect in an argument that prevents it from delivering the degree of support it claims for the conclusion.

Identify an Issue in Dispute

A question type focused on determining the specific topic on which two speakers disagree based on their provided statements.