Logical Reasoning Chapter 2

What are the four stimuli types and their descriptions?

Arguments - Premises and Conclusions

Premise Sets - Non - Contradictory Premises

Paradox - Contradictory Premises

Debate - Two Speakers.

What are Arguments?

Most LSAT stimuli are arguments. These arguments are made up of premises and conclusions. Premises are facts, and conclusions are the opinions or claims based on those facts. When you put them together, you get an argument.

What are Premise Sets?

Premise Sets are the second most common type of stimulus. They include only premises and no conclusion. They’re simply a group of facts for you to think about and connect.

What are Paradoxes?

Paradoxes are a special kind of Premise Set. In a Paradox, the premises seem to contradict each other, which make the stimulus confusing.

What are Debates?

Debates are stimuli where two people are speaking. One or both of them will usually make an argument. They discuss or argue about whether a specific point is true or false.

What is the “CLIR”?

When you’re doing an LR section, you will always detect the stimulus type and perform an analytical task associated with that stimulus type; these tasks are collectively called the CLIR.

What is the full - form of CLIR?

Controversy, Loophole, Inference, Resolution.

Which stimulus type applies to each task on “CLIR”?

Debate – Controversy

Argument – Loophole

Premise Set – Inference

Paradox – Resolution.

(DAPP - CLIR)

What are the two things an Argument is made up of?

An Argument is made up of two things: premises and conclusions. Arguments are all about the relationship between the conclusion and its premises.

What are premises?

Premises are the base of the argument that are used to support the conclusion.

Can premises be questioned?

Premises are the facts and evidence, and cannot be questioned.

What do premises need to support them?

Premises are not dependent on the conclusion or on other premises. Premises don't need anything to support them.

What should you keep in mind while dealing with premises?

Don't debate the truth of the premise. Instead, focus on how the premises fit together. Premises are defined by their relationship to the conclusion.

What role do premises play in an argument?

Premises act as the evidence.

What are conclusions?

Conclusions are the judgments the author makes.
Conclusions are built upon the arrangement of premises. The author takes what's been given in the premises and infers something new in the conclusion.

What do conclusions need to support them?

Conclusions are based on premises. They rely on the premises.

Can conclusions be questioned?

Conclusions are the part of the argument you are allowed to question.

What happens if the premises aren’t arranged well enough?

Conclusions are not necessarily ironclad; the premises are usually not arranged well enough to prove the conclusion. They are dependent on premises. If the premises aren't arranged well enough, the conclusion won't work.

What role do conclusions play in an argument?

Conclusions are the claims.

Why should you pay attention to premise and conclusion indicator words?

Memorize and be on the lookout for premise and conclusion indicators. Use them to guide yourself through stimuli. When indicator words are present, they are a reliable way to identify parts of an argument.

What should you do when indicator words are absent in a stimuli?

In case Indicator words are absent, go deeper and ask yourself about the nature of each statement: Are they facts or claims? Try to figure out which parts are the premises and which is the conclusion, based on how they interact with each other.

What are valid conclusions?

These are conclusions that are strongly supported. A valid conclusion must be true if the premises are true. Since we always assume the premises are true, a valid conclusion is one that must be true.

How can you figure out if a conclusion is valid or not?

To come up with a valid conclusion, look for a common term between two premises and see if anything is repeated that helps you connect them.

Where else can you find more complex valid conclusions?

A slightly more complex valid conclusion happens when there aren't exact repeated words, but instead something that belongs to the same category in both premises. Another type of valid conclusion includes one premise talking about something that doesn't fit in a particular category, and another premise referring to something that is included in that category. They share a common element.

What is a valid conclusion also known as?

A valid conclusion can also be called an inference, depending on the context.

What is the difference between a valid conclusion and an inference?

Valid conclusions are always presented as part of the stimulus.
Inferences, on the other hand, are not part of the stimulus. An inference is something we come up with ourselves from a premise. It is a connection we make, based on that premise.

What are invalid conclusions?

On the LSAT, most conclusions are invalid. Invalid conclusions make the wrong connection between the premises and the conclusion.

How can you disprove invalid conclusions?

To disprove invalid conclusions, you have to object them. You need to design very strong objections that point out a specific situation where the conclusion would fail.

What are the strong objections designed to disprove invalid conclusions, known as?

These strong objections are called “Loopholes”.

Are valid conclusions vulnerable to Loopholes?

Valid conclusions aren’t vulnerable to reasonable loopholes, invalid conclusions are.

How to Invalidate a conclusion?

To invalidate a conclusion, use these Loophole tips:

1. Always assume something is being left out of what the author chooses to present. What the stimulus doesn’t say is often more important than what it does say.

2. Don’t assume that what’s true for one group means the opposite is true for another group.
   Just because something applies to one side doesn’t mean the reverse applies to the other.

3. You are not allowed to fill in the gaps between the premises for the author.

4. Premises must prove the conclusion. You can’t use outside knowledge or assumptions to help the argument.

5. The LSAT often tries to fool you by mixing up two different ideas. Just because two ideas sound similar doesn't mean they are the same.

What is the basic difference between valid and invalid conclusions?

Valid conclusions are proven by their premises. Invalid conclusions aren't proven by their premises.

What is something that is common in all invalid conclusions?

All the invalid conclusions take something for granted. Loopholes are how we attack invalid conclusions.

What happens when a word or idea appears in both premises?

When a word or idea is in both premises, you can usually link them to form a new idea. That new idea is what the two premises meant, but didn’t clearly say. This works in both simple and hard language—hard language just hides the link.

What is considered a “complex argument”?

An intermediate conclusion is considered a complex argument.

What is an Intermediate conclusion?

An intermediate conclusion fulfills the argumentative role of both a premise and a conclusion. It both supports the arguments main conclusion, and is supported by its premises. Intermediate conclusion is a conclusion acting like a premise.

Does intermediate conclusion need support?

The intermediate conclusion also needs support because it is a claim just like the main conclusion.

What is the difference between Intermediate conclusion and main conclusion?

The only difference between intermediate conclusion and main conclusion, in that the former supports the later. The main conclusion is proven with the help of the intermediate conclusion.

What is intermediate conclusion also known as?

subsidiary conclusions or sub-conclusions.

What is a huge giveaway that a stimulus contains intermediate conclusion?

If a stimulus contains two conclusion indicators, that's a huge giveaway that it has an intermediate conclusion.

What is a Nested Claim?

When someone besides the author makes a claim, it is called a nested claim.

What does a nested claim look like in a stimulus?

Nested claims always look like this; they're a description of how someone believes something.

How should you treat Nested Claim in a stimulus?

If the author concludes anything themselves, they will use the nested claim as a premise for their conclusion. In that case, treat the nested clam as a premise and critique the author’s conclusion. It's important to recognize hybrid arguments because you always want to pay attention to the most important claim in the stimulus.

What are Hybrid Arguments?

When the stimulus is only premises and a nested claim (no author's conclusion), we call the stimulus a hybrid argument and critique the nested claim.

What happens when the author doesn’t supply their own conclusions?

When the author doesn't supply their own conclusion, the nested claim acts as the conclusion of the hybrid argument. In this case, we question the validity of the nested claim just like a normal conclusion.

When does a nested claim create a hybrid argument?

A hybrid argument is just nested claim with a few premises attached. If the author concludes anything on the own, the nested claim does not create a hybrid argument.

How can you Attack an Argument?

How to Attack an Argument:

Throughout your LR training, you will try to destroy all the conclusions you encounter by designing Loopholes. To build this skill set, always ask yourself why the conclusion is supposed to be true. Think through the possibilities that cast doubt on the way the premises (supposedly) add up to lead to the conclusion. Do this every single time you read a conclusion on the LSAT and hear someone make a questionable claims in real life.

Attack the premises' relationship to one another and to the conclusion, but never question the truth of the premises. The premises are factually true, no matter how outlandish they sound or how much you may disagree with them.

Always assume there is something being left out of what the author chooses to present to you. Never attack the truth of the premises; attack what the premises purposefully aren't telling you.