Logical Reasoning Methods

Must Be True

100% proven by the information in the stimulus. The correct answer should not require any assumptions in order to be proven by the stimulus.

• Take statements in the stimulus as true.

• There is no need to identify conclusions and premises.

• If there are any statements that can be connected to each other, try to connect them.

Most Strongly Supported

Very strongly supported by the information in the stimulus - it might not be 100% proven, but you have good reasons from the stimulus to believe that the answer is true.

• Take statements in the stimulus as true.

• There is no need to identify conclusions and premises. If the stimulus does have an argument, it can be helpful to identify any assumptions made by the argument.

• If there are any statements that can be connected to each other, try to connect them.

Main Conclusion

Restatement or paraphrase of the main conclusion of the argument.

• Read the stimulus carefully and identify the main conclusion of the argument.

• Usually you can tell what the main conclusion is by looking for an expression of opinion that is supported by other statements

• Often the conclusion will be phrased as a rejection of something else "That belief is false. " If so, make sure to translate that statement into a full idea - what does the author mean by "that belief is false"?

• If stuck between two answers, ask which one supports the other? The one that is supported is more likely to be the correct answer.

Argument Part

Accurate description of the role played by the statement we're asked about.

• Read the stimulus and identify the conclusion and the premises. Don't pay attention to the statement that you're asked about until you've broken down the argument first.

• After breaking down the argument, think about the role of the statement you're asked about.

• Is it part of the author's argument? If so, is it premise, intermediate conclusion, or main conclusion?

• If it's not part of the author's argument, is it part of someone else's argument? Is it a point of concession? Something else?

Method of Reasoning

Accurate description of the way the argument goes from premise to conclusion.

• Read the stimulus and identify the conclusion and the premises.

• Can you recognize a common form of reasoning? (rule-application, phenomenon- hypothesis, generalization, analogy, cost/benefit, etc.)

• If you can't, that's OK; not every argument uses an easy-to-describe form of reasoning.

Flaw

Accurate description of why the argument's reasoning is flawed.

The answer could be phrased in the following ways:

1. Abstract description of the bad reasoning

2. What the argument overlooks

3. What the argument assumes

• Identify the conclusion and the premises.

• Think about why the conclusion doesn't have to be true even if the premises are true.

• Sometimes you'll be able to recognize a common form of flaw (confusing sufficient and necessary conditions, correlation to cause, etc.)

Necessary Assumption

Something that must be true in order for the argument's conclusion to possibly follow from the premises.

• Identify the conclusion and the premises.

• Think about why the conclusion doesn't have to be true even if the premises are true.

• Pay attention to new concepts brought up on the conclusion but not mentioned in the stimulus. The argument has to make some kind of assumption about those new ideas.

• Be open-minded; sometimes an argument can have many different necessary assumptions and it's hard to predict what the correct answer will be about.

• If you're uncertain about an answer, apply the negation test. Does the negation of the answer make it impossible for the conclusion to follow logically from the premises? If yes, then this answer is necessary and is correct.

Sufficient Assumption

Something that, if added to the premises, would 100% guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

• Identify the conclusion and the premises.

• Think about why the conclusion doesn't have to be true even if the premises are true.

• Pay attention to new concepts brought up in the conclusion but not mentioned in the stimulus. The argument has to make some kind of assumption about those new ideas.

• Be ready for conditional logic in the premises or conclusion. Sufficient assumption questions often involve identifying missing links between different conditional relationships.

• If you're stuck on an answer, ask whether that answer, combined with the premises, 100% proves the conclusion. If it doesn't, it's not correct.

Strengthen

Something that, if true, would make the conclusion more likely to follow from the premises.

• Identify the conclusion and the premises. Think about why the conclusion doesn't have to be true even if the premises are true.

• Pay attention to new concepts brought up on the conclusion but not mentioned in the stimulus. The argument has to make some kind of assumption about those new ideas.

• Be ready for arguments where the author tries to provide a hypothesis (causal explanation) for some phenomenon. If you see this structure, think about alternate hypotheses.

• Be open-minded. It's had to predict exactly what the correct answer will involve.

Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption - Rule

Something that, if true, would make the conclusion more likely to follow from the premises.

• Identify the conclusion and the premises.

• Identify a "premise -> conclusion" bridge.

Weaken

Something that, if true, would make the conclusion less likely to follow from the premises.

• Identify the conclusion and the premises.

• Think about why the conclusion doesn't have to be true even if the premises are true.

• Pay attention to new concepts brought up on the conclusion but not mentioned in the stimulus. The argument has to make some kind of assumption about those new ideas.

• Be ready for arguments where the author tries to provide a hypothesis (causal explanation) for some phenomenon. If you see this structure, think about alternate hypotheses.

• Be open-minded. It's had to predict exactly what the correct answer will involve.

Evaluate

A question that, depending on how it's answered, would either strengthen or weaken the argument.

• Follow the same approach as for strengthen/weaken questions •

Resolve/Reconcile/Explain

Something that, if true, would help explain the apparently conflicting facts in the stimulus.

• Usually the stimulus involves an apparent contradiction or conflict.

• Try to identify the two things that seem to conflict - why don't these seem to go together?

Parallel

An argument that most closely matches the key elements of reasoning in the argument in the stimulus.

• Identify the conclusion and premises.

• Try to summarize the key elements of the premises and conclusion that you're looking to match in the correct answer.

• Be ready to for conditional logic, which is common on these questions.

• Pay attention to the strength of language in the conclusion.

Parallel Flaw

An argument that most closely matches the flawed reasoning in the argument in the stimulus.

• Identify the conclusion and premises.

• Try to identify why the argument is flawed - why doesn't the conclusion follow from the premises?

• Try to summarize the key elements of the premises and conclusion that you're looking to match in the correct answer.

• Be ready to for conditional logic, which is common on these questions.

• Pay attention to the strength of language in the conclusion.

Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption - Application

An argument or situation that matches one of the principles in the stimulus.

• Understand the principle in the stimulus.

• Often the principle will involve conditional logic. Be ready to break down the principle into "if" and "then" .

• You may need to think about the contrapositive of the principle.

Point at Issue - Disagree

A statement that one speaker would say "Yes" to and the other speaker would say "No" to.

• Break down the first person's statement.

• Then, break down the second person's.

• Think about whether they disagree about a conclusion, premise, assumption, or something else.