Loophole LR

Anatomy of a LR question

stimulus, question stem, answer choices

Stimulus

• always read stimulus first

• answer to the question is in the stimulus

Stimuli types

Arguments, Premise sets, Debates, Paradoxes

Answer choices

Every correct answer on the lsat is either powerful or provable

Cluster sentences

• monstrosities with hidden points using convoluted and difficult language

Specifiers

by, since, in, as, if, in addition to, because, after, on, that, of, around, which, for, although, between, until, when, while, who

Classic cluster sentence trick

• divorcing the sentence’s main noun from it verb

• ex: The five cent nickel, which in reality if composed of 75% copper, came into circulation in the 19th century.

Core element

• part of the sentence that cannot be removed without destroying all grammatical sense of reason

• has the main noun and verb in it

Optional element

• piece of the sentence that can be removed without any bad grammatical consequences

Middle-out method

• when you have two or more commas in a sentence, use middle out. all you have to do is see if the middle piece can be a complete sentence by itself.

• ex. Pretzels eat people [who disobey their orders]

Translation

• to master LR you need to master its language. translation is how you will overcome the difficult language.

How to translate

1. Read and understand each sentence piece by piece

2. Cover up the stimulus after you are done reading.

3. Say what you just read in your own words. use practical, casual language.

The three commandments of translation

1. you MUST translate every LSAT stimulus

2. Translating is the opposite of skimming

3. At first you will have to translate consciously. It will quickly become subconscious with practice.

Commas indicate

that something on either side of the comma is an optional element

Arguments

made up of premise(s) and conclusion

Premise

• evidence

• the support

• think solid, foundational blocks

• not dependent on the conclusion

Conclusion

• the claim

• fragile and squishy

• need to be supported by premises to be worth anything

• part of the argument you question

Premise Indicators

• because

• for

• since

• as

• given that

Conclusion indicators

• therefore

• accordingly

• consequently

• so

• thus

• hence

• it follows that

Valid conclusions

• proven

• must be true

Interlocking point

• point of similarity in the premises

• in order to find the conc, you must look for a common term between the premises and figure out what the repetition allows u to conclude

Inference

• not part of an argument

• a valid conclusion you design yourself, not a conclusion in the argument

Invalid conclusions

• not proven

• LSATs bread and butter

Loopholes

• super-powered objections to invalid conclusions

• we are questioning authority

• “what if”

Intermediate Conclusion

• fulfills the argumentative role of both a premise and a conclusion

• it is the marzipan block between the premise blocks and conc cake

• a claim supporting another claim

How do you tell the difference between an intermediate conclusion and a main conclusion?

you look for which statement relies on the other one

Nested Claim

• when someone besides the author makes a claim

• ex. Dr. Hamilton’s study found that Red Bull actually does give you wings

Hybrid Argument

• 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

Power Players

Must , Cannot, Could, Not necessarily

• this is what makes the argument strong or weak

Must (Certainty)

• Must is tough to prove and easy to attack

• requires powerful premises to back it up

• sometimes the must certainty is implied not said → I will go to the gym today.

• 100%

Must examples

• always

• every single time

• no exceptions ever

• you can't get out of doing this no matter what

Cannot (certainty)

• difficult to prove easy to attack

• requires powerful premises

• 0%

Cannot examples

• never

• impossible in any circumstance

• no way

Could (Possibility)

• easier to prove harder to attack

• not impossible

• if there is even a remote chance that something may occur, the stimulus will use could

• 1-100%, everything but 0% is likely

Could examples

• possible

• can

• there's a chance

• maybe

• might

• encompasses both something unlikely and something likely

• may or may not

Not necessarily (Possibility)

• easier to prove, harder to attack→ loopholes must be very strong

• not must

• 0-99%, everything but 100% likely

Not necessarily examples

• doesn't have to be the case

• literally "not must"

• could be an exception

• not guaranteed

Certainty conclusions: M&C Conclusions

certainty premises - certainty conclusions

• certainty conclusions almost always require certainty premises to be valid

Certainty conclusions

• can vary between must and cannot based on random wording decisions, so they should be handled similarly

• certainty conclusions are vulnerable to Loopholes because of how bold their claims are

Possibility-Certainty

• can't prove a certainty conclusion from all possibility premises, except under the most irregular circumstances

Possibility Conclusions: could and not necessarily

certainty - possibility

• it is easy to prove a possibility conclusion from certainty premises

Possibility-Possibility

• possibility premises can hypothetically prove a possibility conclusion, but these arguments are almost always invalid

Equivalence

tells us which pairs of power players mean the same thing

Equivalence chart

must could
---|--------|------ flip line
cannot not necessarily

• flip line tells you to change your truthiness indicator every time you cross it, meaning if you start with true, switch to false at the flip line. if you start with false, switch to true at the flip line

Equivalent relationships

• must be true ←→ cannot be false

• cannot be true ←→ must be false

• could be true ←→ not necessarily false

• not necessarily true ←→ could be false

same for false

Negation

• the art of adding and subtracting a “not” from out power players

• negated pairs are NOT opposites

Negation relationships

• must be true ←/→ not necessarily true

• not necessarily true ←/→ must be true

• cannot be true←/→ could be true

• could be true ←/→ cannot be true

Conditional reasoning

Conditional reasoning is the art of the if/then

If

• this is our sufficient condition

Then

• this is our necessary condition

Sufficient Condition

• door opener

• could happen but does not have to

• if the suff cond is absent, IGNORE the conditional

• if present, MUST be followed

Sufficient indicators

• if

• when(ever)

• any(time)

• all

• every(time)

• in order to

• people who

• each

Necessary Condition

• slams the door that the suff cond opens

• certainty

Necessary Indicators

• then

• must

• necessary

• required

• only (if)

• depends

• need (to)

• have to

• essential

• precondition

Only if

• this is a necessary indicator even tho it contains the word ‘if’

• think only is dominant over the if

Contrapositive

• if the necessary condition is absent, the sufficient is absent too

• Negate and Reverse

• ex: A→B = ~B→~A

The What Test

• when you see an indicator and are unsure of its target ask yourself:

• What is the indicator referring to?

• for example, if a statement says required in it, ask yourself what is required?

Conditional Chains

• when you see two or more overlapping conditions, then you can make one singular chain

• ex. A→B→C

And/Or CR

• always switch the and/or when taking the contrapositive of a conditional

• always diagram and/or conditionals vertically

If and Only If CR

• double indicator

• both the suff and neces cond

• the two terms are always together, if you have one, you have the other, if one is absent, the other is absent also

• ex. We will compromise, if and only if, I get everything I want

Diagram options:

compromise→ get everything

get everything → compromise

soooo

compromise ←→ get everything and vice versa

CP: ~get everything ←→ ~compromise

If and Only If family

• if an only if

• all and only

• but not otherwise

• when and only when

Either/Or (inclusion indicators)

• forces us to include at least one of the two things it targets

Steps to diagram:

1. Negate one half and put it in the suff cond

2. Place other half in NC

Ex: Either I will stare off into the distance, or I will make progress.

Diagram:

~stare→progress

No, None, Nobody, Never (exclusion indicators)

• this means you have to chose between the two variables in the statement

• cannot have both has to be one or the other

Steps to diagram:

1. Choose one half of statement to put in sufficient condition

2. Negate the other side and put it in the necessary condition

Ex: None of the pocket squares will surrender.

pocket square → ~surrender or

surrender → ~pocket square

Unless (our exception)

• unless is a conditional exception indicator

• if you go against the way things always are, I must have my unless exception.

Ex: Purple is hateful, unless it’s sleeping

• if purple is not hateful (going against the way things always are), it must be sleeping(exception)

• ~PH → S

Remember:

~[the way things always are] → exception

Unless family

• except

• until

• without

Some/Most

• rogue sufficients

• they always go right before their target and their target goes straight in the sufficient condition

ex:

“some henchmen” = henchmen ←s→ wtv

“most inkwells”

Some family

• few

• many

• at least one

• several

• not all = fancy way of saying some

- means that some of your target does NOT have the quality described

Some diagramming

Put the some’s target in sufficient

Ex: Some waterbottles are hilariously overpriced

diagram: waterbottle ←s→ hilariously overpriced

Not all Ex:

• Not all feathers are in caps.

• feathers ←s→ not in caps

Most family

• usually

• probably

• mostly

• more often than not

Most diagramming

• put most’s target in sufficient

Ex: Most otters are burglars

• otters —m→ burglars

Sufficient Assumption

• proves the conclusion 100% true

• POWERFUL

Necessary Assumption

• if the conclusion is true, the necessary assumption MUST also be true

• a NA is proven by the conclusion, just like a valid conclusion is proven by the premises

• necessary foundation for the argument

• PROVABLE

The Assumption Chain

• the sufficient assumption proves the conclusion and, in turn, the conclusion proves the necessary assumption.

SA → Conclusion → NA

Sufficient Assumption test

• Does [assumption candidate] prove the conclusion?

Necessary Assumption Test

• If the conclusion is true, must [assumption candidate] be true?

What can be considered both a SA and a NA?

• if premise, then conclusion constructions are both sufficient and necessary assumptions

The Loophole

• flipside of the necessary assumption

• always start with what if..

• if the loophole is true, the conclusion is screwed

The 3 commandments of the Loophole

1. The loophole shall not negate the premises

2. The loophole shall not negate the conclusion

3. The loophole is there, figure it out

Dangling variables LH

• new words that appear in the conclusion and not in the premises

• LH: What if those 2 things are not necessarily the same?

Conditional Dangling variables LH

• add a new variable to the conclusion’s conditional statement

Secret Value Judgements LH

• when the author gets judgy in the conclusion

• your secret value judgements loophole reminds the author that they can’t just assume a convenient definition of loaded words like: moral/immoral or appropriate/inappropriate

• LH: What if the value judgement doesn’t have that definition?

Secret downsides

• when the author compares two things and says one of them is superior without giving you the full story.

• LH: What if the argument’s preferred option has a big downside?

Assumed universal goals

the things the author assumes everyone would want

common AUG:

• losing weight

• making more money

• being healthier

• being more successful

LH: What if they don’t want to [assumed universal goal]?

Causal argument

claims that a cause and effect relationship exists

Causal indicators

• cause

• produced by

• leads to

• effect

• responsible for

• factor

• product

The omitted options loophole

1. What if there is no relationship at all?

   • lsat lies by omission

2. What is the causation is backwards?

   • reversing the cause and effect is almost always a possibility with any causal conclusion on the LSAT

3. What if a new factor caused one or both these things?

   • there can always be a third factor

Correlation and causation

Correlation =/= Causation

Classic Flaws

• automatic loopholes

Bad conditional reasoning CF

• when the author reads the conditionals supplied in the premises incorrectly

• ex: WH→AS→TN (stimulus)

• Conclusion: TN→WH, this is completely wrong and bad conditional reasoning

• look for incorrect negation/ reversal or switching of the necessary/sufficient

Bad Causal reasoning CF

• when the conclusion takes correlation presented in stimulus to be causation

• remember ur ommitted options

Part/Whole CF

• Parts =/= Wholes

• assuming that a trait that applies to a group as a whole is therefore true of each part of group OR

• assuming that a trait that applies to each part of a group is therefore applicable as a whole

Overgeneralization CF

• taking a premise about a specific topic within a subject and concluding on the subject as a whole

• ex. Liana was quite clever in her paper on shark anatomy, so Liana is a clever person.

Survey problems CF

Always assume surveys are done with the greatest possible incompetence

Problems:

1. Biased sample

   • when group is not a proper representation for the task at hand

2. Survey liars → ppl can lie on surveys

3. Biased questions

4. Small sample size

False Starts CF

• False starts researchers always assume that the 2 groups are same in all respects except the ones called out as part of the study.

• ex. Group A = old people, Group B= College students, both are assigned to make a call at a specific time and group A performed better → concludes that memory isn’t completely bad as u age

• Problem: assumed that CS and OP are completely the same except for their ages, maybe students didn’t have a phone or maybe they had other commitments…

Possibility =/= Certainty

1. Lack of evidence =/= evidence of lacking

   • It is not necessarily true so it cannot be true.

   • Just bc there is not clear evidence does not mean you can assume the argument is completely false.

2. Proof of evidence =/= Evidence of proof

   • It could be true so it must be true.

Implications CF

• Implication basically tells people what they believe, adds in a factual premise and uses the belief to conclude something else entirely.

• ex. Josefina believes there is a robot overlord in charge of our lives. Robot overlords always wear neckties. Therefore, Josefina believes a necktie wearer is in charge of our daily lives.

• Belief is manipulated.

False Dichotomy/Dilemma CF

A FD pretends that there are only two options when there really could be more.

There are 2 ways FD go wrong:

1. Limiting a spectrum

   • on a spectrum you can go up, down or remain the same but authors tend to assume only two.

   • ex. The quality of the the orange zest didn’t deteriorate overnight, so it must have improved.

   • Not more does not equal less

   • Not less does not equal more

2. Limiting Options

   • pretends that there are only two options when there could be more

   • ex. Because Raoul is a vegetarian, he will not have the pepperoni pizza for lunch. Therefore, he must be having cheese pizza.

Straw Man CF

• Straw Man arguments ‘respond’ to an opponent by ‘mishearing’ what was said to them.

• basically involves the distortion of one’s point to make it easier to take down

ex.

Kara: We need to create a more reliable schedule for feeding the alligators in the preserve. It is dangerous for us to enter the pen when the alligators are hungry.

Thomas: So what you are really saying is we should let the gators get their own food whenever they want!

Ad Hominem CF

• attacking the source of the argument, rather than the ideas themselves

• attacking the proponent of a claim does not make the claim false

• a proponent’s bias for/against a position does not affect the truth or falsity of that position

Ex. John says that the square is red but John works for the red lobby. So the square is definitely not red.

Circular Reasoning CF

• a circular argument assumes the conclusion is true before doing the work of proving it so.

• The conclusion is just a restatement of the premises/ evidence