LR Question Aims and Methods

Credit to aobonyo on Quizlet

Top Down

Accept stimulus to be 100% true

Bottom Up

Accept answer choices to be 100% true

Aim: Main Point/Main Conclusion (Top Down)

Aim: Identify the stimulus's conclusion from the context and premise(s).

Method: Main Point/Main Conclusion (Top Down)

Method:

• Sift through the stimulus, note the context, premises, and conclusion using indicators words. The correct answer choice will match the conclusion ONLY.

• Be wary of obvious indicators: when faced with two possible conclusions, the one with the most obvious indicator (typically the last sentence) is not the true conclusion.

Aim: Most Strongly Supported (Top Down)

Aim: We're given a series of premises and have to find the most supported conclusion among the answer choices.

Method: Most Strongly Supported (Top Down)

Method:

• Of the five answer choices each (blank) question gives you, only one will have any support at all.

• The other four will be completely unsupported.

• Unlike MP questions, sometimes only a small portion of the stimulus is used to support the right answer choice.

• To eliminate ACs, ask yourself: "why should I believe this?"

Aim: Must Be True (Top Down)

Aim: Take the conditional statements and anticipate the valid outcome/conclusion/inference.

Method: Must Be True (Top Down)

Method:

• Lawgically map out the stimulus (if not mentally mappable)
  
  A P
  A --> B P --> C
  ____________ ______________
  ??? C

• You're trying to find the conclusion (C) or "B", which is the logical conclusion/valid inference (100% guaranteed)

• Don't analyze the argument; you're trying to find an AC that can be 100% verified by the stimulus

Aim: Must Be False (Top Down)

Aim: Among the ACs, only one is certainly false and the rest have the possibility to the true ("perhaps" or "could be true").

Method: Must Be False (Top Down)

Method:

• The correct AC is either a NEGATED inference or a CONTRADICTED statement in the stimulus.

• Anything loose could be true: if the answer choice doesn't relate directly to the premises in the stimulus, it could be true.

• Don't analyze the argument; you're trying to find an AC that can be 100% verified as incorrect by the stimulus.

Aim: Argument Part (Top Down)

Aim: You are given a small part of the argument and asked to select one "label" from the five labels given in the ACs.

(Similar to MP questions because they are testing your ability to identify relationships between different argument parts)

Method: Argument Part (Top Down)

Method:

• Label each part of the argument.

• Remember referential phrasing to deconstruct convoluted ACs.

• The correct AC is a label that accurately describes the part of the argument that the question stem has selected.

• Usually, the argument part selected by the stem won't be the argument's main conclusion,

Aim: Weaken (Bottom Up)

Aim: You must DENY the assumption gap in the argument provided.

Method: Weaken (Bottom Up)

Method:

• Locate the gap in the support between the premises and the conclusion

• Choose an AC that EXPLOITS this gap by denying the assumption that's being made to connect P --> C

  (Note: Correct weakening ACs do not undercut the premise(s) or the conclusion; they come for the support ONLY)

• For EXCEPT question, look for 4 weakening ACs

Aim: Strengthen (Bottom Up)

Aim: You must AFFIRM the assumption gap in the argument provided.

Method: Strengthen (Bottom Up)

Method:

• Locate the gap in the support between the premises and hte conclusion
  

• Choose an AC that strengthens this gap by affirming the assumption being made to connect P --> C

  (Note: Correct strengthening ACs do not strengthen the premise or conclusion; only the support)

• For EXCEPT questions, look for 4 strengthening ACs

Aim: Sufficient Assumption (Bottom Up)

Aim: The support that the premises offer the conclusion is missing a vital assumption that makes the argument completely valid.

Find a sufficient assumption among the ACs that makes the argument air-tight.

Method: Sufficient Assumption (Bottom Up)

Method:

• Translate the stimulus into lawgic by identifying the premise(s) and the conclusion. This often takes the form of:
  
  A P
  ??? P --> C
  ____ _______
  B C
  

• You're trying to find the P --> C (A-->B) (or the contrapositive) to make the argument valid.
  

  *Keep the valid and invalid argument forms in mind
  
  *Be vigilant of mismatches!

Aim: Pseudo Sufficient Assumption (Bottom Up)

Aim: Same aim as sufficient assumption.

The only distinction is that PSA answers often take the form of a principle (a general statement) that is not necessarily an airtight answer.

It makes the argument more valid than what the stimulus offers.

Method: Pseudo Sufficient Assumption (Bottom Up)

Method:

• Translate the stimulus into lawgic by identifying the premise(s) and the conclusion. This often takes the form of:
  
  A P
  ??? P --> C
  _______ _______
  B C
  

• You're trying to find the P --> C (A-->B) (or the contrapositive) to make the argument valid.
  

  *Keep the valid and invalid argument forms in mind
  
  *Be vigilant of mismatches!

Aim: Principle (Bottom Up)

Aim: You're given the "P --> C" relationship in the stimulus and must find the correct premise/conclusion in the ACs

Method: Principle (Bottom Up)

Method:

• The correct AC is a principle that you can stuff in to the argument to make it completely valid (i.e. like the sufficient assumption questions).

• When the stimulus has the principle: locate the principle by identifying the conditional statement (broad, non-specific) .

• If the question stem denotes the ACs as principles: locate the argument (P and C) in the stimulus; the correct AC will provide the principle (additional premise) that links both argument parts together.

Aim: Necessary Assumption (Bottom Up)

Aim: Presented with a premise and conclusion where there is a necessary assumption that is not stated. Without this assumption, the argument will fall apart. This assumption is usually subtle and not very strong.

Method 1: Necessary Assumption (Bottom Up)

Method:

• MBT APPROACH: the correct AC must be true in order for the argument to hold
  

• NEGATION TEST: take the AC and negate it, if the negation does not make sense with the argument (destroys the argument), then this is the right AC. The original form of the AC is required by the argument
  
  *Review the negations of some/all/none/most
  
  P
  P --> C (missing necessary assumption)
  _____________
  C

Method 2: Necessary Assumption (Bottom Up)

Method:

• Given an argument with premises and conclusion, we have to come up with a subtle/weak assumption that bridges or blocks the gap between P --> C

  (1) Bridging: bridge the gap in support between P--> C

  (2) Blocking: protecting your argument from wrecking balls (alternative explanations)

Aim: Method of Reasoning (Top Down)

Aim: Being asked to describe how the premises support the conclusion (describe what the argument is doing/the author's argument process)

Method: Method of Reasoning (Top Down)

Method:

• Label different parts of the stimulus (premises, conclusion, context).

• With each AC, ask yourself: "does the stimulus do this?" If it does not, eliminate.

• Be mindful of referential phrasing and abstract language.

• When eliminating wrong ACs, think about argument types that they would describe (in order to become familiar with what is and what isn't)

Aim: Parallel Method of Reasoning (Top Down)

Aim: You are trying to find an AC that matches the form of the argument given in the stimulus.

Method: Parallel Method of Reasoning (Top Down)

Method:

• Heavy use of lawgic.

• Matching content doesn't matter: if you find an AC that matches in subject matter it is typically wrong.

• Order doesn't matter: the order of the premises and conclusion in the stimulus and correct AC don't have to match

• When practicing be sure to map out all the ACs, regardless of how obviously wrong they are. When it comes to timed test, then quickly eliminate.

Aim: Flaw/Descriptive Weakening (Top Down)

Aim: Combination of weakening and method of reasoning questions

You identify the argument's point of weakness and the correct AC describes how the argument is weak

Method: Flaw/Descriptive Weakening (Top Down)

Method:

• Identify premise and conclusion. Anticipate the flaw.

• Ask: "What's the gap in the support between P and C?"
  "What's the argument inappropriately assuming?"

• Match the anticipated flaw to the correct AC.

• For each AC, consider whether:
  1) It is descriptively accurate (method)
  2) It is describing the flaw

• Correct ACs will support both questions; incorrect ACs will not; trap ACs will support one and not the other.

Aim: Parallel Flaw (Top Down)

Aim: You identify the argument's flaw and the correct AC presents a parallel argument that matches the form and flaw of the original.

(Combination of flaw and parallel method of reasoning questions)

Method: Parallel Flaw (Top Down)

Method:

• Identify premise and conclusion/lawgical pattern. Locate flaw in the argument. Find a matching flawed argument from the ACs.
  

  Note:

• Heavy use of lawgic

• Matching content doesn't matter

• Matching order doesn't matter; the order of Ps and Cs in the stimulus and correct AC don't have to match

Aim: Resolve/Reconcile/Explain (Bottom Up)

Aim: Given a phenomenon-hypothesis scenario that relays only the appearance of a contradiction (not a real one).

You have to choose among the ACs something that helps reconcile, resolve, and explain away the contradiction.

Resolve/Reconcile/Explain (Up)

Method:

• Read the stimulus and identify the contradiction. Anticipate the bridge. Locate the AC that sufficiently explains away the contradiction by answering the question, "why?"

Aim: Point at Issue (Top Down)

Aim:
1) Agreement: where you must identify what the two subjects agree on

2) Disagreement: where you must identify what the two subjects disagree on (which is the contradiction)

Method: Point at Issue (Top Down)

Method:

• If agreement: try to AC that replays what the two parties agree on

• If disagreement: try to find AC that relays the contradiction between both parties
  
  *Eliminating wrong ACs: if one of the two parties has not expressed an opinion on the AC, eliminate it
  
  (Note: Stick to what you know: do not infer beyond the stimulus)