These questions ask you to find an assumption—an unstated premise—that the argument needs to be true: Which one of the following is an assumption on which the scientist’s argument depends? The conclusion relies on which one of the following assumptions? The argument presupposes which one of the following? The university president’s argument requires the assumption that… The conclusion does not follow unless… Make a Few Strong Predictions While it might be hard to predict these answers word for word, you can often predict necessary steps that are missing from an argument before you read the question. Here’s how: Find the main conclusion. If you’re having trouble, see LR: Closed Questions and study up on argument parts and indicators. Find the premises. Don’t assume that all statements other than the main conclusion are premises. They might include an opposing viewpoint, background information, or a concession. Stay focused on the evidence. Figure out why the premises don’t prove the main conclusion. Even though you have accepted the premises as true, they still don’t prove the conclusion. Why not? What’s missing? Focus on exactly what the argument says. Don’t assume anything that isn’t explicitly stated. Many arguments, by the way, have more than one problem. The more problems you notice, the better prepared you are to answer the question. After you spot one or two weaknesses, you’re ready to read the answers. How to Evaluate Answer Choices An argument can have many necessary assumptions. Even if you predict multiple necessary assumptions, you might not predict the correct answer. Making predictions remains a key step in engaging with the argument and ensuring that you understand its logic properly. As you read each answer choice, the only question you need to ask yourself is: “Does this answer absolutely have to be true in order for the argument to work?” If the answer to that question is yes, then that answer choice is probably correct. What to Look For Look for an answer that you can safely say the author must agree with. In general, the weaker the answer, the better. Be wary of answers that use all, any, each, every, only, most, and other strong words that restrict the words that follow them. (Don’t discount these words completely, though. Remember content is more important than word strength.)
These closed questions ask you to describe how the author draws her conclusion: Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the argument? The ethicist derives her conclusion by… The argument proceeds by… Make a Strong Prediction On a Reasoning question, the passage will be an argument and can be either valid or flawed. The question asks you to understand how that argument works. Engage with the passage the first time you read it. Pause to think about what the author is trying to say after each sentence. By the time you finish reading the passage, you should know the main conclusion. You should also have a strong grasp of how the argument proceeds. Reasoning questions are completely predictable. Before you read the answers, predict how the correct one will describe the author’s reasoning: Spot the premises and the main conclusion. If you’re unsure, learn more about argument parts and indicators here. If a statement isn’t a premise or a main conclusion, it might be an example, a concession, or background information. Describe how the premises support the main conclusion. Your prediction doesn’t need to be perfect. Just outline what’s happening in the argument using plain English. For example, you might observe that “The author disproves a study’s results by showing that its sample is unrepresentative.” Or you might observe that “The author is rejecting a person’s argument by pointing out that that person is dumb.” Keep it as simple as possible. What to Look For Once you’re confident in your prediction, look for an answer choice that matches it. The correct answer must accurately describe what happens in the passage. If, for instance, the passage uses one example to support its conclusion, you can rule out an answer choice that says that the argument “relies on multiple examples.” Just one extra letter can make an entire answer choice wrong. Break down the answers part by part. In your mind, replace abstract words in the answer with concrete ideas from the passage. Consider this question and possible answer choice: The argument proceeds by: (A) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type. Let’s break this answer into three parts: inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type Restate part 1 to yourself and check that it matches the passage: “Is the argument concluding that an attitude would be justified?” If not, stop and move on to the next answer choice. Do the same for part 2: “Is that conclusion for all situations of a certain type?” And part 3: “Is this because that attitude is justified in one of those situations?” If you answer “no” to any of these questions, this answer choice is wrong. Time to move on.
These closed questions ask you to identify another argument that uses the same reasoning pattern or makes the same logical mistake as the argument in the passage. Parallel Reasoning might sound like this: Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the reasoning in the argument above? Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above? Parallel Flaw question might sound like this: Which one of the following exhibits the flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning above? The questionable reasoning above is most similar in its reasoning to which one of the following? The only difference is that the Parallel Reasoning type involves matching an argument’s structure, while Parallel Flaw focuses on matching an argument’s flaw. Parallel Reasoning passages aren’t usually flawed, but Parallel Flaw passages always are. These two Parallel question types have similar attack strategies. No need to stress—these questions aren’t as hard as some people make them out to be. Here’s everything you need to know to master Parallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw questions. Predicting Parallel Reasoning Questions The correct answer will be analogous in reasoning, but not necessarily in topic, to the passage. Rather than trying to predict the answer word-for-word, focus on predicting which characteristic of the argument will be repeated in the correct answer. Before you read the answer choices: Understand how the argument works. Identify its main conclusion and its premises (brush up here) as well as its validity. If the question asks you to match the argument’s “flawed” or “questionable reasoning,” you already know the premises don’t prove the conclusion. What’s missing? Restate the basic structure of the argument in your head—resist the urge to diagram!. Consider the following passage: Martha: Our profits might drop. If they drop, we must buy more advertising or cut costs. We have already cut costs as much as possible. So if profits drop, we must buy more advertising. To simplify the argument, you might say: Something might happen. If it happens, we must do one of two options. We can’t do option 1. So if that thing happens, we must do option 2. Using the example above, a parallel argument on an unrelated topic could be: “My phone might die. If it does, I must hitchhike or walk. I’m not going to hitchhike. So if my phone dies, I must walk.” For even better understanding, try coming up with your own parallel argument! Predicting Parallel Flaw Questions On Parallel Flaw questions, the test writers tell you that the argument is flawed. Ideally, you can pinpoint at least one problem by engaging with the passage the first time you read it. Take a moment to articulate the flaw in general terms. Before you read the answer choices: Focus on exactly what the argument says to avoid subconsciously helping it. Don’t make the very assumptions that the test writers are trying to hide. Your job is to catch those assumptions. If there are multiple flaws in the passage, Parallel Flaw questions typically focus on the most serious one. Consider Ryan’s argument: Ryan: Most cats are pets. Most pets go to a veterinarian doctor at least once every year. So at least some cats go to a doctor at least once every year. In your head, talk through the argument’s flaws: Even though most cats are pets and most pets go to the vet at least once a year, “most” just means “more than half.” It’s possible that 49% of all pets never go to the vet. Heck, maybe only dog owners take their pets to the vet! We don’t know whether or not pet cats fall into that 49% of pets who never make it to the vet. We don’t know what percentage of pets never go. But we do know that those two situations are both possible, so the premises don’t prove the conclusion. That’s where this argument is flawed. Restate the flaw in Ryan’s argument: “Just because most of one thing are also a second thing, and most of the second thing do X, that doesn’t mean that some of the first thing do X. Maybe all of the first thing fall into the 49% of the second thing that don’t do X.” The correct answer could incorporate a timeframe like the passage did, but it doesn’t need to. You may have noticed that the second premise talks about a “veterinarian doctor” and the conclusion talks about a “doctor.” It works because all vets are doctors. It would’ve been a problem if the phrases “vet” and “doctor” had been reversed, because not all doctors are vets. Once you’ve understood the flaw in general terms, come up with your own specific example using concrete ideas. For instance, the following argument matches Ryan’s flaw: Most New Yorkers are Democrats, and most Democrats support unions. Therefore, at least some New Yorkers support unions. How Similar Is “Parallel?” When the test writers ask you for “parallel reasoning,” they’re asking you to find an argument that uses the same kind of logic to justify its conclusion, even if the topics are different. Consider these two (mostly) parallel arguments: Every competitor on Saturday will either give up or request help, but not both. Those competitors who give up will get a participation award. But those who request help will get an achievement award. Therefore, every competitor on Saturday will get an award. All the cows on Jon’s farm tomorrow will graze the pasture outside or stay inside all day. The cows that graze the pasture will get unusually sleepy. The other cows will eat an unusual dinner. So all the cows on Jon’s farm tomorrow will do something unusual. The reasoning is not perfectly parallel, but it’s close enough. The goal is to look for the argument that is most parallel, and this argument has several important similarities: The first premise and the conclusion in argument 2 both use the word “all,” which means the same thing as the word “every” in argument 1. Matching word strength is key in Parallel question types. The subjects of both arguments all do only one of two things. (The first premise of argument 1 says “but not both.” And in argument 2, it’s impossible to both “stay inside all day” and “graze the pasture outside.”) In both arguments, two groups experience different-but-related events. in (In argument 1, both groups of competitors get an award. In argument 2, both groups of cows do something unusual.) Both arguments split their subjects into two groups that do not overlap. Argument 2’s conclusion refers back to all the cows, just as argument 1’s conclusion refers back to every competitor. What to Look For The correct answer choice will be the one that most resembles the argument in the passage, regardless of the topic. Here are common ways the reasoning in two arguments look alike: Look for the same number of premises and conclusions, but not necessarily in the same order. Make sure you’re comparing premises to premises and conclusions to conclusions. Look for the same number of ideas in each argument part. In argument 1 above, there are 1) two discrete groups, 2) one consequence that happens for each group, and 3) a conclusion about everyone across both groups. Argument 2 incorporates these ideas too. The correct answer will almost always use logical terms that mean the same thing as the logical terms used in the original argument. The correct answer might use usually instead of most, for example. It might use assert instead of argue. If a conclusion is much stronger or much weaker than the passage’s conclusion, it’s probably a wrong answer choice. Should I Skip Parallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw Questions? Many students psych themselves out about Parallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw questions because they involve evaluating six different arguments. In reality, though, these question types are no more or less difficult in and of themselves. You might encounter a Parallel Reasoning question that’s easier than a Role question. Questions earlier on in the section tend to be easier. If question #9 is a Parallel Reasoning question, chances are it won’t be very challenging. It’s worth a shot even if it isn’t your favorite question type. If you’re going to skip any question, decide you’ll skip it right away and don’t waste any time on it. If you have time left at the end of the section you can come back to it.
These questions ask you to help the main conclusion: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument’s overall conclusion? Which one of the following, if true, most supports the television executive’s argument? Which one of the following principles most strongly supports the argument above? Which one of the following, if true, most justifies the educator’s reasoning? The reasoning in the advertisement would be most strengthened if which one of the following were true? Make a Strong Prediction Because it’s impossible to strengthen a valid argument, there must be at least one flaw in every Strengthen question’s argument. The first time you read the passage, make sure to actively engage and pinpoint at least one flaw, using the steps below: Find the main conclusion. If the conclusion rejects an idea, restate the conclusion as the opposite of that idea. For example, if a conclusion claims, “Clearly, Sterling is wrong in saying that Don is brilliant,” we want to strengthen the contention that Don is not brilliant. If you need to brush up on argument parts and indicators, go here. Find the premises. Premises are statements that support the main conclusion. Don’t confuse these with background information, concessions, or opposing viewpoints. Figure out why the premises don’t prove the main conclusion. Accept the premises as true, but remember—they don’t prove the conclusion. Why don’t they? Catch any sneaky assumptions and find a way to state them explicitly to strengthen the author’s argument. There might be multiple problems with the argument. Identify as many as you can. After spotting one or two serious flaws, proceed to the answer choices. What to Look For The correct answer won’t necessarily prove the main conclusion, but it will make that conclusion stronger. As you read each answer, ask yourself: Does this answer help the main conclusion more than the other four answers? Only the correct answer will give you a relevant piece of new evidence, which may have been assumed but never explicitly stated by the author. The new evidence should fix, at least partly, one of the problems you identified. If two answers both help the conclusion, the more strongly-worded answer is usually the correct one in a Strengthen question. For instance, it might say “all” rather than “some.” As always, though, the content of the answer matters more than word strength. If a question uses the word except, look for the opposite: The correct answer will either weaken the conclusion or do nothing, so rule out answers that strengthen the conclusion at all.
These questions ask you to find something that two people disagree about: The statements above provide the most support for holding that Mark and Simon disagree about whether… The main point at issue between Michael and Stan is whether… On the basis of their statements, the two students are committed to disagreeing over… Make a Strong Prediction The keys to Logical Reasoning are 1) actively engaging with each passage before reading the question and 2) making a strong prediction before reading the answer choices. To spot the disagreement: Treat everything in each argument as evidence. Argue with the conclusions, not the premises. Figure out what each person believes, even if they’re wrong or their logic sucks. Spot where the two positions overlap and conflict. After reading the vague phrase “I disagree,” students often assume the second person disagrees with the first person’s main conclusion. Don’t fall into this trap! Pinpoint the exact areas of conflict between the two speakers’ positions. Consider the following example: Jim: We should pull our troops out of the Persian Gulf because it’s too hot there. Sarah: I disagree. The weather there is quite nice. In this exchange, Sarah is not disagreeing with Jim’s conclusion that we should pull out our troops, but with his premise that it’s too hot there. For all we know, she agrees that we should pull out our troops. That’s not the point of conflict. This might be your prediction: Jim and Sarah disagree over the Gulf’s weather. What to Look For As you read each answer, ask yourself two questions: What does person A think about this answer? (Agree, disagree, or unknown?) What does person B think about this answer? (Agree, disagree, or unknown?) The correct answer will be something with which one person agrees and the other disagrees. There are plenty of ways an answer choice can be wrong: If both agree with that answer, then it’s wrong. If both disagree with that answer, then it’s wrong. If one person doesn’t say enough for you to know what they think about that answer, then that answer is wrong and you can move on without evaluating what the other person thinks. Repeat this process for each answer choice. Video: https://youtu.be/HfV-uB5hHUY?feature=shared “Agree” Questions Occasionally, passages involving two speakers will ask you to pinpoint how the two speakers agree rather than disagree. Follow the same strategy outlined above. For each answer choice, ask yourself what person A thinks about it, what person B thinks about it. Select the answer choice about which both speakers clearly agree.
This open question type asks you what information would most help you evaluate whether the main conclusion is true: Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument? Make a Strong Prediction On an Evaluate question, the argument must be flawed in some way. The best way to predict the correct answer is to identify this flaw by spotting lingering doubts, gaps in the argument’s logic, or unstated assumptions. You’re not on anyone’s side in this argument—you’re just trying to figure out whether the conclusion is true. What evidence do you wish you had? What to Look For The correct answer won’t give you new information. Instead, it will ask you what new information you’d most like to know. It can help or hurt the conclusion. Either way, you’re looking for the answer that would, if you learned its content, do the most to help or hurt the main conclusion. So, as you read each answer, ask yourself: Would the information in this answer either help or hurt the conclusion more than the other four answers? All things equal, strongly-worded answer choices tend to provide more impactful evidence (whether in favor of or against the argument). But remember content is always more important than word strength.
These open questions ask you to resolve a paradox. They’re commonly phrased as follows: Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the apparent paradox above? Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the conflict described above? Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively reconcile the discrepancy described above? Make a Strong Prediction Paradox passages rarely contain an argument. Instead, they usually present two seemingly contradictory facts. Your job is to understand how it’s possible for both of those facts to be true despite an apparent contradiction. You’re solving a mystery—time to get creative! Once you recognize that it’s a Paradox question, identify two conflicting facts and ask yourself: Why is one fact happening, even though the other fact is happening? Your prediction might involve made-up information and doesn’t need to match the correct answer word-for-word. It’s okay to keep it vague as long as you pinpoint something that will resolve the discrepancy. Consider the following passage: John really hates eating ice cream. And yet, on Tuesday I saw him downtown at an ice cream shop. How might you resolve this paradox? Maybe John is on a date, and the person he’s trying to impress really loves ice cream. Maybe John’s friend dared him to eat his least favorite kind of food. Maybe John is looking for a job and he’s applying for one at the ice cream shop because they pay $20/hr. The point is that John has a reason to be at the ice cream shop that doesn’t involve enjoying ice cream himself. Once you capture the gist of the solution to the paradox, move on to the answers. What to Look For Assume that all five answer choices are true. The correct answer will give you new evidence that explains away the paradox. Once you know that John is trying to impress a hot date, there’s no more confusion. If you’re debating between two answers that both help to explain the paradox, pick the more helpful one. The content of each answer matters first. Once you’re satisfied that an answer choice is relevant, turn your focus to its strength. The correct answer often uses strong wording. If it’s an except question, the correct answer won’t resolve anything—in fact, it might even make the paradox more confusing (“The author saw John enjoy his cone of ice cream with relish”). To narrow down your options, cross out answers that resolve the issue even slightly ("John hates ice cream, except he loves peppermint ice cream").
These open questions ask you to find an assumption (a missing premise) that, if it were true, would 100% prove the main conclusion: Which one of the following, if assumed, would justify the conclusion? Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn? The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is true? The speaker’s main conclusion logically follows if which one of the following is assumed? Make a Strong Prediction A sufficient assumption is a new fact that, in tandem with the premises, proves the conclusion. After you add it to the argument, you don’t need to add anything else. So ask yourself: “What would I add to this argument to fix its problems and prove the conclusion?” There’s often only one flaw, but if there are multiple issues, the correct answer must fix all of them. If you notice anything in the conclusion that is not mentioned in the premises, then that idea must be addressed by the correct answer. To make a strong prediction, start by understanding the argument inside and out. Find the main conclusion and the premises (review here), figure out why the premises don’t prove the main conclusion, then figure out what would prove the main conclusion. If the argument has a gaping hole, patch it up. Your job is to be the emergency first-responder who’s been dispatched to save the argument. What to Look For As you read each answer choice, ask yourself: Does this answer prove the main conclusion? Does this answer completely fix every problem with the argument? Remember, take all five answer choices as true. The correct answer will give you new evidence that proves the main conclusion by fixing all its flaws. Because we’re trying to prove the conclusion beyond a shadow of a doubt, stronger language is usually better. Be wary of answer choices that say “some” or “many,” as those words are often not sufficient to prove the conclusion. However, content is much more important than word strength, so focus on understanding the argument.
On a Supported question, your job is to figure out which answer is most likely to be true given what was said in the passage—think of it as “Must Be True” lite. Here are some ways these questions might be phrased: Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above? The statements above, if true, would most strongly support which one of the following? If the editorialist’s statements are true, they provide the most support for which one of the following? Which one of the following best completes the passage? Which one of the following most logically completes the argument? Make a Strong Prediction Supported questions can be challenging to predict—the same evidence could be used to support various conclusions. But you should still predict a possible answer to ensure that you’ve understood the facts of the passage. Treat everything in the passage as evidence. Assume that all the statements in the passage are true, regardless of whether they are true in the real world. Although it could be a full-blown argument with premises and a conclusion, the passage for a Supported question usually contains only a set of facts. Based on the evidence, predict what else must be true. To figure out what else must be true, examine how each statement in the passage relates to the other statements. Can you combine any of them to infer something new? Let’s say a passage tells you that “some cats love ice cream” and that “ice cream is a carcinogen.” Since “ice cream” appears in both statements, you can link them to infer that “some cats love a carcinogen.” Some Supported questions show a blank line (________________) in the passage and ask you to complete the argument. After you read the premises, briefly pause to predict the type of answer that could fill in the blank. Do this before you read the answer choices. Two Key Questions to Ask Yourself The difference between a Supported question and a Must Be True question lies in the wording of the question, but answers to both types of questions usually end up being something that must be true. As you read each answer choice, ask yourself: Does the answer absolutely have to be true? Is it at least the answer that is most likely to be true? The correct answer on a Supported question doesn't have to be 100% proven. In most cases, however, it is. What to Look For The correct answer will either restate a fact from the passage or combine facts from the passage to infer something new. When an answer accurately restates a fact from the passage, don’t hesitate to select that answer. Restatements, which have to be true, are great answers. On Must Be True and Supported questions, weakly worded answers are generally preferable. It’s easier to prove, for example, that some people like ice cream than it is to prove that most or all people like ice cream. Content is more important than word strength, but be wary of answers that use all, any, each, every, only, most, and other strong words. These answers could be correct, but they require stronger evidence to prove.
Here are some ways a Conclusion question might ask you to find the main conclusion of an argument: Which one of the following most accurately states the conclusion drawn in the argument? Which one of the following sentences best expresses the overall conclusion of the surrealist’s reasoning? The main point of the argument above is that… Identifying the conclusion should be one of the first things you do after you carefully read any argument. You should know what the argument’s conclusion is before you read the question. Find the Main Conclusion The main conclusion is the reason why the author sat down and wrote the argument. It’s what the author tries to sell you on. The main conclusion is not a summary of the overall argument. It’s one specific claim that the author tries to prove using the premises. It’s almost always stated explicitly in the passage, whether it’s at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. Sometimes it’s an entire sentence. Sometimes it’s just part of a sentence. Everything else in the argument is a premise (a fact that supports the conclusion), an intermediate conclusion (a claim that is supported by a premise and, in turn, supports the main conclusion), or background information (a fact that doesn’t play a logical role in the argument). When a Conclusion Refers Back to Something Else, Restate It If a conclusion uses a word like this, that, such, or any other pronoun, it’s probably referring back to an idea that was stated earlier in the passage. Incorporate that idea into your own rewording of the main conclusion. Consider the example below. What idea does the pronoun they refer back to? Joe: Many scientists argue that the world is getting warmer. But they are wrong. This year’s average temperatures are colder than last year’s were. “They” in the conclusion refers to “scientists.” To restate the conclusion in your own words, ask yourself: What does Joe try to prove? He tries to tell us that stupid scientists are wrong and that the world isn’t getting warmer. As always, you need to fully understand what the main conclusion is before you start looking at the answer choices. Keep an Eye Out for Opposing Viewpoints If the passage begins by telling you what other people believe or claim, the main conclusion will often come right after and reject that claim. In the global-warming argument above, the first sentence is an opposing viewpoint, the second is the main conclusion, and the third is a premise. The main conclusion doesn’t have to come right after an opposing viewpoint, but it usually does. Use Argument Indicators Cautiously Classic indicator words like therefore, thus, and so come right after a premise and right before a conclusion. But they do not necessarily introduce the main conclusion. These words can also introduce an intermediate conclusion. Similarly, the words because, since, and for usually come right before a premise, but they could also introduce an intermediate conclusion. Students who rely solely on indicator words often misidentify the main conclusion—especially when the test writers put the main conclusion at the beginning of the passage and then use a conclusion indicator for an intermediate conclusion near the end of the argument. Consider the following example: Annalisa: John should stop going to chess club. John hates board games, and chess is a board game. Thus, he hates chess. Can you figure out the main conclusion in Annalisa’s argument? In terms of argument structure, here’s what Annalisa says: Annalisa: (Main conclusion). (Premise), and (premise). Thus, (intermediate conclusion). Many test-takers mistakenly identify the last sentence as the main conclusion. They get distracted by the “thus” in the last sentence, and they miss how the last sentence actually supports the first. To be clear, the last sentence is a conclusion, but it’s not the main conclusion. The correct answer to a Conclusion question would restate the first sentence, not the last. In short, argument indicators can be helpful, but don’t assume that they always precede the main conclusion. Use the Therefore Test If you’re debating between two conclusions stated in an argument, use the therefore test to figure out which is the main conclusion and which is the supporting intermediate conclusion. Here’s how: State the first conclusion, then the word “therefore,” and then the second conclusion. If this arrangement makes sense, then the first conclusion supports the second conclusion. The second conclusion is probably the main conclusion. Test the reverse order. If it makes more sense to state the second conclusion, then the word “therefore,” and then the first conclusion, then the first conclusion is probably the main conclusion. Consider the following argument: All big fish have sharp teeth, and Mike likes any creature that has sharp teeth. Sharks are big fish. It follows that sharks have sharp teeth and that Mike likes them. In the example above, which arrangement makes more sense? Mike likes sharks. Therefore, Sharks have sharp teeth. Sharks have sharp teeth. Therefore, Mike likes sharks. The second one makes more sense. Mike’s feelings about sharks have no impact on sharks’ teeth. But whether sharks have sharp teeth does impact whether Mike likes them. The main conclusion is “Mike likes sharks.” Quiz Yourself! Where does the conclusion appear in a passage? If there’s a word like “therefore,” does it always introduce the main conclusion? Answers: Anywhere. No, it could introduce an intermediate conclusion.
Get LSAT strategies in your inbox.
© 2024 LSAT Demon, LLCTerms of Service