The Loophole in LSAT (Logical Reasoning) Chapters 1-6

LSAT LR Translations (Ch. 1)

Once you put the stimulus in your own words, it's much more likely to mentally stick; this improves your memory & enables you to get the question right more quickly.

Biggest LR Secret (The Stimulus Framework)

The answer is in the stimulus, not in the answer choices. That's why reading is so important. You have to know what happened in the stimulus in order to complete the question.

The "CLIR" Technique (The Stimulus Framework)

-Controversy --> Debate (i.e. How are pro-lifers also pro-DP?)

-Loophole --> Argument ("What if...")

-Inference --> Premise Set (you come up w/the valid conc.)

-Resolution --> Paradox (indirect relationship)

Invalid & Valid Conclusions (Ch. 2)

-invalid: most arguments on LSAT; vulnerable to Loopholes ("What if...")

-valid: always presented as part of an argument; inference is a valid conc. you design, not a conc. inside an argument

How to Attack an Argument (Ch. 2)

Expose the gaps btw. the blocks. Attack the premises' relationships to one another & to the conc., but never question the truth of the premises. Always assume there is something being left out of what the author chooses to present to you.

The Power Players (Ch. 3)

Power players are what make the argument strong or weak.

-Certainty: MUST (no other option) & CANNOT (any other option); *When you don't see un/certainty indicators, you're dealing w/a certain sentence.

-Possibility: COULD & NOT NECESSARILY (poss. an option); NOT NECESSARILY often appears when stimuli begins w/"Some scientists/critics/people believe..." & the author smacks "some people" down.

Certainty Premises - Certainty Conclusions (Ch. 3)

Certainty Conclusions almost always require Certainty Premises in order to be valid. Always assume that the stimulus isn't giving you the full story. The thing they "forget" to tell you is your Loophole.

Possibility Premises - Certainty Conclusions (Ch. 3)

You can't prove a Certainty Conclusion from all Possibility Premises, except under the most irregular circumstances (too weak to justify alone).

Certainty Premises - Possibility Conclusions (Ch. 3)

It's easy to prove a Possibility Conclusion from Certainty Premises.

Possibility Premises - Possibility Conclusions (Ch. 3)

Possibility Premises can hypothetically prove a Possibility Conclusion, but these arguments are almost always invalid.

Truthiness Indicators & Equivalence (Ch. 3)

Start w/the Power Player, follow the arrow, then change your truthiness indicator.

Truthiness Indicators & Negation (Ch. 3)

Negation isn't the opposite b/c you don't change your truthiness indicator, only the Power Players. The correct answer to an EXCEPT question is the Negation of the Power Player in the question stem.

The Sufficient "If" Condition (Ch. 4)

If the sufficient condition is absent, you can completely ignore the conditional statement.

Sufficient Indicators (Ch. 4)

-if

-when(ever)

-any(time)

-all

-every(time)

-in order to

-people who

-each

* open, inclusive, STRONG words

The Necessary "Then" Condition (Ch. 4)

It has to occur at some point if the conditional relationship is activated. *Negated NA is the same thing as the Loophole.

Necessary Indicators (Ch. 4)

-then

-must

-necessary

-required

*only(if)

-depends

-need (to)

-have to

-essential

-precondition

*serious, restrictive, CAUTIOUS words

The What Test (Ch. 4)

You can perform it be adding "what" to whichever side of the indicator makes grammatical sense. Ask "what is the indicator referring to?"

Either/Or "2 Vowels" (Ch. 4)

Implies that you MUST have at least one of the pair in the given conditional; easy to just negate the sufficient condition.

No, None, Nobody, Never "4 N's" (Ch. 4)

If you have one, you can't have the other; just negate the necessary condition.

Unless (Ch. 4)

~[the way things always are] --> exception

Some & Most Rogue Sufficients (Ch. 4)

-some: few, many, at least one, several; *biconditional arrow with a "s" on top

-most: usually, probably, mostly, more often than not; *normal arrow with a "m" on top

*you can read a MOST statement backwards, as long as you switch the MOST to a SOME

Secret Value Judgments (Ch. 5)

Type of dangling variable that makes the author come across as "moral" or "judgy"

-im/moral

-should/n't

-in/appropriate

-im/prudent

-good/bad

-right/wrong

*If philosophers can't conclude what is "universally good," then how can the LSAT?

Secret Downsides (Ch. 5)

When the author compares two things & says one of them is superior w/o giving you the full story. The secret downside to the author's preferred option is the Loophole.

Assumed Universal Goals (Ch. 5)

Never assume that it's common knowledge for everyone to want the same things in their lives (i.e. weight loss, more money & success, being healthier).

Causal Indicators (Ch. 6)

-cause

-responsible for

-produced by

-factor

-leads to

-product

-effect

Cause & Effect (Ch. 6)

Causal reasoning is just simple cause & effect. Causal conclusions are extremely Loophole-vulnerable b/c appearances are deceiving in causal reasoning.

The Omitted Options (Ch. 6)

-no relationship: things could happen independently of one another

-backwards causation: reversing the cause & effect like this is almost a possibility w/any causal conclusion on the LSAT

-new factor causing one or both: there can always be a third factor in the mix (i.e. dangling variable) that caused one or both things to happen

*Omitted Options always work as Loopholes!

Correlation & Causation (Ch. 6)

-correlation: two things occurred together once or many times (i.e. peanut butter tends to go with jelly)

-causation: one thing leads to another (i.e. peanut butter DOESN'T cause you to put jelly on your sandwich, you just do)

*correlation & causation AREN'T the same!