Argument Section - LSAT

Card Set Information

Argument Section - LSAT
2014-07-30 17:01:47
LSAT Argument

Argument Section
Show Answers:

  1. Conclusion Questions:
    Look for the Main Point

    Will be supported w/ Premises

    opinion, point of view, or explanation

    Right answer - Will most closely match/summarize the conclusion.
  2. Deduction Questions:
    Combine 2 statements from argument to produce a new statement.

    Describes subject matter in quantity, frequency or probability.  Often deals w/ conditional statements.

  3. What are the two types of Deduction Questions?
    • 1. Conclusively Established
    • Concrete, 100% true

    • 2. Strongly Supported
    • small inferential leap from info to answer
  4. Principle Questions:
    Accurately describe the content more generally

    Summarize the argument at a higher level of generality.
  5. Assumption Questions:
    Find the unstated premise: provide the missing link btw premise and conclusion

    Fact/piece of evidence not stated BUT relied on for conclusion
  6. Steps to right answer for ASSUMPTION Questions:
    1. Identify the conclusion and premises

    2. Identify new language in conclusion that isn't in premises

    3. Identify the gap (language in premise & not in conclusion)
  7. Strengthen Question Right Answers:
    Provide additional, concrete info that further supports the conclusion
  8. Approach for General Principle-Strengthen Questions

    Which one of the following principles most helps to justify drawing the conclusion?
    Right answer will be a general principle that justifies the conclusion's normative stance.

    Questions will have normative language: should, should not, appropriate, unethical, responsible for.

    • Principle=2 parts
    • 1. rule to govern behavior/decisions
    • 2. condition/context that triggers rule
    • *match parts to corresponding part of argument
  9. Paradox Questions: 2 statements w/ tension, inconsistency, discrepancy or conflict

    What is the right answer?
    Correct answer: Dissolve/explain away inconsistency

    May introduce a new fact/consideration
  10. Weaken Question:
    Show that the data presented in the premises does not support the conclusion
  11. Weaken Question right answers:
    1. Undermine connection of data & conclusion

    2. Introduce new data inconsistent w/ conclusion
  12. 3 types of Describe Questions:
    1. Explain a role a particular statement plays

    2. Describe how the argument proceeds

    3. Identify the point over which 2 speakers disagree
  13. Describe Question
    Explain a role a particular statement plays Questions
    --How to address this type of Describe Question?
    • Look for:
    • Intermediate/Subsidiary conclusions

    Statement to be refuted (opposite of conclusion)

    Difference btw analogy (comparison) & evidence (fact that supports conclusion)
  14. Describe Questions
    Identify a point of disagreement

    --How to address this type of Describe Question?
    Identify Conclusion & Premises

    What is the point they disagree over?

    Answer will be concrete and tied to subject of argument
  15. Describe Questions
    Describe how the argument proceeds

    --How to address this type of Describe Question?
    Identify Conclusion and Premises

    • Sublabel conclusion
    • -prediction, opinion, solution, theory, principle

    • Sublabel premises
    • -anecdote, observation, example, data, results of study

    Right answer parts will correspond w/ argument part
  16. Find a Flaw Questions:
    Describe the error in reasoning committed by the argument
  17. What are the 9 types of flaws?
    1. Necessary vs. Sufficient conditions

    • 2. Confusing parts & whole
    • (whole has new qualities from parts)

    • 3. Inadequate/unrepresentative sample
    • (theory on limited data/base generalization prediction)

    • 4. Confusing correlation w/ causation
    • Correlation-2 thing appear tog. frequently
    • Causation-2 things associated b/c of each other

    • 5. Ignoring a 3rd Cause/reversing causality
    • A & B correlated = A causes B and doesn't consider a C option

    • 6. Shifts in meaning & ambiguous language
    • using same term twice w/ diff. meanings

    • 7. Ad Hominem attack
    • attempt to discredit by attacking person

    • 8. Straw Man
    • discredits by misrepresenting content

    • 9. Appeal to popularity
    • pop. not evidence of reliability or accuracy
  18. Parallel Reasoning Questions Approach:
    1. Track the conditional statements in argument

    2. Symbolize conditional statements

    3. Make deduction by following arrow in conditional statements

    4. Compare argument statements w/ answer statements.