LSAT Question Type Notes

From your notebook of tips & tricks :D

Main Point / Identify the Conclusion

• Conclusion: a statement that doesn’t provide support for any of the other statements and is supported by the others

• Consider what is the arguer trying to prove?

• You don’t need to identify if the argument is good or bad, just what the author is saying

• Find the point - what is the arguer trying to convince us of?

• Conclusion indicators: thus, hence, therefore, so, but (sometimes is)

Method of Reasoning

• “Argument proceeds by” = MOR

• Think about what the arguer is doing in the conclusion - refuting or supporting?

• What kind of support is the argument using?

• For Parallel MOR

  • It’s possible to have a Parallel MOR without an argument, a principal illustrated in stimulus and same principle in the answer choice

  • If there’s a conditional (if/then) in stimulus, it needs to be in AC too

  • Look for superficial similarities, they matter

    • i.e conditional vs fact

    • 2 claims versus 1

  • If there’s a contrapositive in the stimulus, it will be in the AC 

  • 2 answers with identical structure can’t both be right 

Role of a Statement

• When between 2 answers: analyze which one is more factually accurate

• Identify main conclusion vs sub conclusion

  • main conclusion will be supported by ALL statements

• “But” can indicate author’s own opinion or a conclusion depending on context

  • If it’s an opinion, that rules out it being a principle 

• Before looking at ACs, asking yourself “what is the statement doing in the argument? how does it relate to other statements?” —> match your prediction to a choice 

Premise/Evidence Indicators

• because

• since

• for

• given that

• due to 

• furthermore 

• moreover

• after all 

Conclusion Indicators

• therefore

• thus

• consequently

• so

• hence

• follows that

• shows

• as a result

• clearly

Premise vs Principle

• Premise: Is this statement being used to justify or lead to a conclusion?

• Principle: Is this a general rule that guides a system or behavior?

Flaw Type: Sampling

Limited info is applied more widely than reasonable

Indicators: 

• Polls, surveys, or studies

• Data or statistics that come from a limited source (such as "one meteorologist")

• A shift from specific evidence to a general conclusion (for example, the evidence is about three doctors and the conclusion is about all doctors)

• A shift from evidence to conclusion during which the arguer assumes—but doesn't demonstrate—that one is acceptably representative of the other

Flaw Type: Ad hominem

Criticize actions, character, motive as a reason that an argument isn’t valid

Example: My doctor tells me it's bad for your lungs to smoke cigarettes, but I know he's lying. I saw him furtively smoking a cigarette the other day.

Flaw Type: Faulty Analogy

Scope shift, Comparing two things that are sufficiently alike

ex: Ms. Smith: I am upset that my son's entire class lost two days of recess because some of the children were throwing raisins in the cafeteria. He was not throwing raisins, and it was clear to everyone just who the culprits were.

Principal: I'm sorry you're upset, Ms. Smith, but your son's situation is like being caught in a traffic jam caused by an accident. People who aren't involved in the accident nevertheless have to suffer by sitting there in the middle of it.

Flaw: It does not acknowledge the fact that a traffic jam following an accident is unavoidable while the mass punishment was avoidable.

Flaw Type: Causation / Correlation

Concluding because 2 things happened at the same time, one thing caused the other

The arguer overlooks two important possibilities: 1) a third, unaccounted-for thing could actually be the cause, and 2) the cause-and-effect could actually be in the reverse order of what the arguer believes.

Example: Last summer, ice cream sales decreased while homicide rates more than doubled in this region. We should look into selling more ice cream in order to keep people safer.

Flaw Type: Lack of Evidence as Proof 

The arguer takes a lack of evidence for a conclusion as if that conclusion is definitely wrong. Also known as taking an absence of evidence for "evidence of absence".

Example: Alien life has never been discovered, so it's clear that alien life doesn't exist.

Flaw Type: False Dichotomy

The arguer acts like there are only two choices, when in fact it isn't an "either/or" situation.

Example: If you're not with us, then you're against us. The arguer is overlooking the possibility that someone could remain neutral.

Similarly, if you’re presented with a situation where both things couldn’t happen at the same time, and one thing didn’t happen, it doesn’t guarantee that the other thing happened. We know both things can’t happen but that doesn’t mean that both couldn’t happen.

Flaw Type: Possible vs Certain

The speaker assumes that because something is possible, then it'll happen.

Example: Last year we didn't have enough budget money for employee raises, but this year there's plenty of money in the budget. So, it's clear that the company will give out raises this year.

Flaw Type: Circular Reasoning

Assumes conclusion is true when proving the conclusion. Circular reasoning arguments usually sound dumb af and are aren’t used that much

Example: Duplicity is an unattractive characteristic, since it's repulsive to lie and deceive.

Example: I am the best because no one is better.

Flaw Type: Equivocation

The arguer uses a potentially ambiguous term in more than one sense and consequently misleads the reader.

Example: A feather is light, and what's light can't be dark, so a feather can't be dark.

Flaw Type: Part to Whole

Assumes what is true of the individual parts of a whole is true about the whole

Example: "This house is made of very lightweight materials, so the house itself must be lightweight". A house made of many small, lightweight parts can still be very heavy due to its size and construction. 

Flaw Type: Domain Shift

Discussing one thing in the premise and another in conclusion

Example: Most pet dogs are friendly. Therefore, most dogs are friendly.

Pet dogs are friendly but that doesn’t mean all dogs are friendly. Feral dogs on the street may not be friendly at all!

Necessary Assumption

• This question asks you to identify the claim that must be true or is required in order for the argument to work.

• In other words, there is a silent, unspoken piece of support that the arguer is taking for granted to be true, and your job is to explicitly identify what that piece is.

• A good way to think of necessary assumptions is: if that statement were to be false, the argument’s reasoning would be undermined.

Necessary Assumption Tips & Tricks

• Conclusion cannot possibly exist without this statement / no way it isn’t true / argument literally falls apart if this isn’t true

• Won’t include if/when in AC

• Keep a look out for predictive words like will

• Be mindful of statements that are very strong

• Note if different words are used in the premises vs conclusion (i.e best vs good) - necessary assumption may provide a missing link

• If you’re between answers, consider which AC makes the argument stronger vs weaker (weaker = incorrect)

• NA often provides link between premises and conclusion. For example:

  • We may have B—> C and conclusion states: A—>C, so we need A—>B

  • Example: Educator: Reducing class sizes in our school district would require hiring more teachers. However, there is already a shortage of qualified teachers in the region. Although students receive more individualized instruction when classes are smaller, education suffers when teachers are underqualified. Therefore, reducing class sizes in our district would probably not improve overall student achievement.

    • NA: (E) Qualified teachers could not be persuaded to relocate in significant numbers to the educator's region to take teaching jobs.

Necessary Assumption Question Stems

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

"The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?"

“The argument relies on which of the following assumptions?”

"Which of the following is a necessary assumption?"

Necessary Assumption - Common Wrong Answers

• Too strong: When a choice is too strong, you’ll want to ask , “Does this statement really have to be true, to the degree that’s expressed here, in order for the argument to hold? Or is it going too far in its precision or strength?” Example: If your prediction is, "Some of the diseases must be curable", a choice that's too strong might state, "Most of the diseases must be curable."

• Irrelevant: When a choice is irrelevant to the argument, you’ll want to ask yourself, “Does this even matter to the argument, or is it just something that’s ‘nice to know’ or ‘surprising because it’s not mentioned or important to the argument'?"

• Weakening: This choice will actually hurt the argument instead of help it to survive.

• Strengthening: This choice will help the conclusion follow from its evidence, but it doesn't have to be true in order for the argument to work. Be careful—a strengthener isn't the same thing as a necessary assumption, even though the argument is somewhat "improved" in both cases!

Question Type: Strengthen

• Look for ACs with stronger language (Especially if you’re between two)

• Summarize the argument in your own words and note used evidence

• Note what words are used specifically

  • Ex: Contracting a disease vs being harmed by it - those are 2 different things!

• If it’s study, looking for an AC that eliminates a confounding variable (ensures study accuracy)

• Look for an answer that legitimizes evidence presented in stimulus

  • Ex: We used the Doppler telescope to identify a new moon of Saturn that no one has ever seen before.

  • AC: The Doppler telescope is always accurate in it’s portrayal of objects.

• Look for AC that legitimizes evidence by ruling out a rebuttal

  • Ex: Only governments investigate this because businesses only do things that make them money.

  • Rebuttal: But what about universities?

  • AC: Universities never look into this either.

• If a phenomenon is presented in the stimulus and AC brings up other instances of that phenomenon in similar scenarios, that strengthens

Question Type: Weaken

• One way to weaken is to provide another explanation for a phenomenon

• For causation/correlation flaws, look for an AC that provides another reason something is happening

• B/w ACs - pay attention to language, which is weaker? (i.e some or less specific —> likely not hte right AC)

• Saying something is not sufficient does not weaken, something can be not sufficient and still very important! 

• You can weaken something by attacking assumptions required by the argument

• For questions that deal with experiments, an AC that speaks to how the experiment doesn’t accurately create real life conditions is a weakener 

• Weakening likelihood of a necessary condition is a weakener

• A hypothesis is not the most powerful strengthener or weakener - it’s not proved to be true

Question Type: Evaluate / Most Useful to Know 

• If the AC is a question, look at it like a combo of strengthening and weakening question as the answer could strengthen or weaken the argument 

• Identify the conclusion and support: Make sure to separate the conclusion from the support—this will make the gap in the argument more visible to you. It can also be helpful to phrase the argument’s structure to yourself as, “The arguer believes [conclusion], because [support]” in order to detect any leaps in logic or scope.

  Look for gaps: Is there specific information that you wish you had, so that you could either side or disagree with the arguer? If so, that’s your prediction!

  Look for common patterns: For example, if the conclusion is causal, consider alternative theories or additional support. Keep common argument structures and common flaws in mind.

Question Type: Sufficient Assumption

• This guarantees the argument is true BUT it’s just one way that it guarantees truth, there could be other things

• Lack of a necessary condition can guarantee something but a necessary condition itself cannot, meanwhile a Sufficient Assumption does guarantee

• If we already know something from the stimulus and the AC repeats, that’s not the right answer because it doesn’t help the argument 

• SAs are assumptions you literally hold, pause and ask “what assumptions do I hold that impact this argument?” 

• If there’s a world in the conclusion that isn’t in the premises, we need to find it in the ACs 

• If you like an AC, add it to the stimulus and see if it makes a 100% ironclad argument - if it is, its correct

• You want language strong enough to make the stimulus valid 

• ACs that introduce brand new concepts are not correct

Sufficient Assumption Question Stems

• Justifies the conclusion

• Enables the conclusion to be properly drawn/inferred

• Conclusion follows logically if 

Sufficient Assumption Trap Answers

• Most in question stem = not SA

• Reverse Relationship: Presents a conditional statement that reflects the relationship between the premise and conclusion

  • Example: If someone studies hard, they will do well. 

  • Wrong Answer: Amy did well so she must have studied hard. 

• Necessary Assumptions 

Question Type: Must be True

• Identify sufficient vs necessary assumptions

• Note if a % is used in the stimulus and a number in AC - those are different 

• Question stem “follows logically” = MBT 

• Wording: 

  • Be mindful of strong words like solely, most, all, a majority

  • Note most vs some

  • Note words like always/never

• If it’s not formal logical, the right answer will be pulled directly from the stimulus similar to MSS

• Have a clear idea of the facts presented

• If its formal logical, diagram and the right answer will likely be on your paper

Question Type: Must be False

• Question stem: Most justifiably be rejected

• Right answer will be a contradiction of a statement in the stimulus

Question Type: Most Strongly Supported

• Look out for words that are extreme or broad: most, any, significantly, all

• Note weak language: some, many, may, sometimes, usually, often

• Look for relationships: Are there ways in which statements relate to each other?

Question Type: Flawed Reasoning 

• Make sure you’re paying attention to the flawed reasoning in the main argument, not the evidence’s flaws 

• If the author is criticizing someone else’s flaws, you’re finding the flaw in the author’s argument, not the subjects

Question Type: Complete the Argument

• Because indicates we are looking for a reason for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself 

Question Type: Point of Disagreement / Agreement 

• You must choose something that:

  • both people talk about

  • for disagreement: one says no, one says yes

• For agreement: they both must touch on it but the AC may be “vague” (easier to agree)

• Paraphrase each speakers arguments - conclusion + support if you’re having trouble

Question Type: Explain / Paradox / RRE 

• You can make common sense assumptions with these

  • If an AC really stands out to you but requires a common sense assumption, it can still be right

• Correct AC will help answer an outstanding question you have on the stimulus

Question Type: Principle 

• Identify what the argument is so you know what you need to justify

• Correct AC will bridge premise to conclusion

• Pay attention to wording a Question Stem (i.e helps to justify) 

• The correct principle will closely match the situation described in the stimulus and vice versa - the more general principle is not usually the answer

• Pay attention to sufficiency / necessity indicators 

  • A principle that states a necessary condition doesn’t help prove points, sufficient conditions are much stronger 

• For questions that use a principle to justify an argument: anything mentioned in the principle must also be mentioned in the stimulus

• When applying a principle, note key words that impact meaning

  • Ex: giving an impression is different than intending something

LSAT “Vocab” - Presupposes

Assuming something is true for right now, takes for granted something is true without being proven

LSAT “Vocab” - Takes for Granted

assumes something is true

LSAT “Vocab” - Some

This means 1-99%

Unlike “all” (universal quantifier), the quantifier “some” is symmetric/reversible.

So:

"Some D are G" logically entails "Some G are D."

Why? Because if there exists at least one person who is both a delegate and a government official, that very same person proves both statements true

LSAT “Vocab” - Most & Majority

This means 51-100%

-“Most” often gets treated as a “soft” quantifier. For reasoning:

Most A → B means “the majority of A overlap with B.”

You can combine “most” with other quantifiers to make deductions (but usually only “some” inferences are guaranteed).

LSAT “Vocab” - Refute

disprove

LSAT “Vocab” - Need Not

Not necessary / required

The letter need not be formal. = There is no need for formality.

LSAT “Vocab” - Mapping a Statement that Starts with No

No janitor teaches social studies is equivalent to “If Jerry is a janitor, then he doesn’t teach social studies.”

LSAT “Vocab” - Random Extras

• Rarely and unlikely are not powerful words, don’t mean or do that much

• Most should always sound alarm bells in your head when it’s an AC - it’s powerful

• A claim or hypothesis are not very powerful because they aren’t proved to be true 

• usually = most

  • both mean more often than not 

Unless in Formal Logic

General Rule:

“A unless B” → means If not B, then A
Or equivalently, If not A, then B (its contrapositive)

In short:

Unless = if not

Example:
“You will fail unless you study.”
→ If you don’t study, you will fail.
→ Contrapositive: If you don’t fail, you studied.

If and only if

What “if and only if” means

In logic,

P if and only if Q
means that P and Q are both true together or both false together.

It’s a two-way relationship — each one implies the other:

(P→Q) is equivalent to saying

(P→Q) and (Q→P)

Ex:

You will pass if and only if you study.

That means:

• If you study → you’ll pass.

• If you pass → you must have studied.

So studying and passing occur together and only together.

Directly Proportional

• The LSAT uses “directly proportional” in wrong answers fairly frequently.

• Directly proportional means: if one thing goes up 10%, then another thing also goes up by exactly 10%.

• Direct proportionality is almost never relevant in an argument. Do you care if your LSAT score is directly proportional to law school application success?

Vulnerable to Attack / Flaw Questions - Answer Stems

• Fails to address: “Would this weaken the author’s argument if true?” 

• Takes for granted: “Does the author believer this, and would this strengthen the argument?” 

• Overlooks the possibility: Would this weaken the author’s argument if true?”