Docsity
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

LSAT - Logical Reasoning Study Exam, Exams of Advanced Education

Liberty University (LU)Advanced Education

An overview of the different types of logical reasoning questions that can be found in the lsat (law school admission test). It covers topics such as premise and conclusion indicators, 13 logical reasoning types (including parallel reasoning, main point, point at issue, method of reasoning, flaw in the reasoning), and common flaws in reasoning (such as error of conditional reasoning, appeal fallacies). The document also discusses strategies for approaching different question types, such as pre-phrasing, identifying the conclusion, and recognizing weaken question scenarios. Overall, this document serves as a comprehensive guide for students preparing for the logical reasoning section of the lsat exam.

Typology: Exams

2024/2025

Available from 10/22/2024

solution-master
solution-master 🇺🇸

3.2

(27)

11K documents

1 / 11

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
LSAT - Logical Reasoning study exam
update questions and answers
Premise - A fact, proposition or statement from which a conclusion is made
Conclusion - A statement or judgment that follows from one or more reasons.
Conditional Reasoning - A conditional statement is, in its most easily recognized
form, an "if...then..." statement. The following is, for example, a conditional
statement. Conditional statements are also described in terms of sufficient and
necessary conditions.
Sufficient - An event or circumstance whose occurrence indicates that a necessary
condition must also occur.
Necessary - An event or circumstance whose occurrence is required in order for a
sufficient condition to occur.
Explain Sufficient Necessary - If a sufficient condition occurs, you automatically
know that the necessary condition also occurs. If a necessary condition occurs,
then it is possible that the sufficient condition will occur, but not certain.
Example of Sufficient Necessary - Banging my shin on the table is all that is
needed for me to scream in pain (i.e. it is sufficient), so banging my shin is
considered the sufficient condition. I cannot bang my shin on the table without
screaming in pain (screaming necessarily follows the banging of my shin), so
screaming in pain is the necessary condition. You should be fine if you can simply
remember that the antecedent (the phrase following the "if") is the sufficient
condition for the consequent (the phrase following the "then") and the
consequent is the necessary condition for the antecedent.
Contra-positive - a conditional statement derived from another by negating and
interchanging antecedent and consequent
Premise Indicators - Because
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa

Partial preview of the text

Download LSAT - Logical Reasoning Study Exam and more Exams Advanced Education in PDF only on Docsity!

LSAT - Logical Reasoning study exam

update questions and answers

Premise - A fact, proposition or statement from which a conclusion is made Conclusion - A statement or judgment that follows from one or more reasons. Conditional Reasoning - A conditional statement is, in its most easily recognized form, an "if...then..." statement. The following is, for example, a conditional statement. Conditional statements are also described in terms of sufficient and necessary conditions. Sufficient - An event or circumstance whose occurrence indicates that a necessary condition must also occur. Necessary - An event or circumstance whose occurrence is required in order for a sufficient condition to occur. Explain Sufficient Necessary - If a sufficient condition occurs, you automatically know that the necessary condition also occurs. If a necessary condition occurs, then it is possible that the sufficient condition will occur, but not certain. Example of Sufficient Necessary - Banging my shin on the table is all that is needed for me to scream in pain (i.e. it is sufficient), so banging my shin is considered the sufficient condition. I cannot bang my shin on the table without screaming in pain (screaming necessarily follows the banging of my shin), so screaming in pain is the necessary condition. You should be fine if you can simply remember that the antecedent (the phrase following the "if") is the sufficient condition for the consequent (the phrase following the "then") and the consequent is the necessary condition for the antecedent. Contra-positive - a conditional statement derived from another by negating and interchanging antecedent and consequent Premise Indicators - Because

Since For For example For that reason that In that Given that As indicated by Due to Owing to This can be seen from We know this by Conclusion Indicators - Thus Therefore Hence Consequently As a result So Accordingly Clearly Must be that Shows that Conclude that Follows that For this reason Thirteen Logical Reasoning Types - 1. Must Be True / Most Supported

  1. Main Point
  2. Point at issue
  3. Assumption
  4. Justify the conclusion
  5. Strengthen / support
  6. Resolve the paradox
  7. Weaken
  8. Method of reasoning
  9. Flaw in the reasoning
  10. Parallel reasoning
  11. Evaluate the argument

Assumption - These questions ask you to identify an assumption of the author's argument. Question stem example: "which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?" Justify the conclusion - Justify the conclusion questions ask you to supply a piece of information that, when added to the premises, proves the conclusion. Question stem example: "which one of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn?" Strengthen / support - These questions ask you to select the answer choice that provides support for the author's argument or strengthens it in some way. Question stem example: "which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?" - "which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the statement above?" Resolve the paradox - Every resolve the paradox stimulus contains a discrepancy or seeming contradiction. You must find the answer choice that best resolves the situation. Question stem example: "which one of the following, if true, would most effectively resolve the apparent paradox above?" Weaken - Weaken questions ask you to attack or undermine the author's argument. Question stem example: "which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?" Method of reasoning - Method of reasoning questions asks you to describe, in abstract terms, the way in which the author made his or her argument. Question stem example: "which of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?" Flaw in the reasoning - Flaw in the reasoning questions ask you to describe, in abstract terms, the error of reasoning committed by the author. Question stem example: "the reasoning in the astronomer's argument is flawed because this argument" Parallel reasoning - Parallel Reasoning questions ask you to identify the answer choice that contains reasoning most similar in structure to the reasoning

presented in the stimulus. Question stem example: "which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?" Evaluate the argument - With evaluate the argument questions; you must decide which answer choice will allow you to determine the logical validity of the argument. Question stem example: "the answer to which one of the following questions would contribute most to an evaluation of the argument?" Cannot be true - Cannot be true questions ask you to identify the answer choice that cannot be true or is most weakened based on the information in the stimulus. Question stem example: "if the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?" Primary Objectives - 1. Determine whether the stimulus contains an argument or if it is only a set of factual statements.

  1. If the stimulus contains an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument. If the stimulus contains a fact set, examine each fact.
  2. If the stimulus contains an argument, determine if the argument is strong or weak.
  3. Read closely and know precisely what the author said. Do not generalize!
  4. Carefully read and identify the question stem. Do not assume that certain words are automatically associated with certain question types.
  5. Pre-phrase; after reading the question stem, take a moment to mentally formulate your answer to the question stem.
  6. Always read each of the five answer choices.
  7. Separate the answer choices into Contenders and Losers. After you complete this process, review the Contenders and decide which answer is the correct one.
  8. If all five answer choices appear to be Losers, return to the stimulus and re- evaluate the argument. Sufficient Condition Indicators - If When Whenever Every All Any People who

How To Attach a Causal Conclusion - Weaken - 1. Find an alternate cause for the slated effect

  1. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur
  2. Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur
  3. Show that the stated relationship is reversed
  4. Show that a statistical problem exist with the data used to make the causal statement To Strengthen a causal argument, do the opposite of the five task above. The Fact Test - The correct answer to a Must Be True question can always be proven by referring to the facts in the stimulus. Assumption - Questions ask you to identify a statement that the argument assumes or supposes. An assumption is simply an unstated premise-what must be true in order for the argument to be true. In conditional reasoning terms, an assumption can be defined as what is necessary for the argument to be true. Justify the Conclusion - Questions ask you to strengthen the argument so powerfully that the conclusion is made logical. Compared to a Strengthen question, the answer to a Justify question must strengthen the conclusion so it is 100% proven; anything less and the answer choice is incorrect. Logically speaking, the correct answer to a Justify the Conclusion question is sufficient to prove the conclusion when added to the premises. Strengthen / Support - Questions ask you to support the argument in any way possible. This type of answer has great range, as the additional support provided by the answer choice could be relatively minor or major. Speaking in numerical terms, any answer choice that strengthens the argument, whether by l% or by 100%, is correct. Typical Weaken Question Scenarios - Although there are many classical logical fallacies, the most common of which we will discuss in the Flaw in the Reasoning section, LSAT Weaken questions tend to occur with stimuli that contain one of the following features:

l. Incomplete Information. The author fails to consider all of the possibilities, or relies upon evidence that is incomplete. This flaw can be attacked by bringing up new possibilities or damaging information.

  1. Improper Comparison. The author attempts to compare two or more items that are essentially different.
  2. Qualified Conclusion. The author qualifies or limits the conclusion in such a way as to leave the argument open to attack. This same flaw often appears in incorrect answer choices. While these three scenarios are not the only ways an argument can be weak, they encompass a large proportion of the errors that appear in LSAT stimuli. Prove Family - In - a. Must Be True / Most Supported b. Main Point c. Point at issue d. Method of reasoning e. Flow in the reasoning f. Parallel reasoning Help - In - a. Assumption b. Justify the conclusion c. Strengthen / support d. Resolve the paradox Hurt - In - a. Weaken Disprove - a. Cannot be true Method of Reasoning - Argument Part (AP) questions are a subset of Method of Reasoning questions. In Method-AP questions, the question stem cites a specific portion of the stimulus and then asks you to identify the role the cited portion plays in the structure of the argument.

Parallel Reasoning Questions - Parallel Reasoning questions ask you to identify the answer choice that contains reasoning most similar in structure to the reasoning presented in the stimulus. Since this requires you to first identify the method of reasoning used by the author, and then identify the method of reasoning present in each answer choice, these questions can be quite time consuming. In Parallel Reasoning questions, the topical matter in the stimulus and the answer choices is irrelevant and same-subject answer choices are generally used to attract the student who fails to focus on the reasoning in the stimulus. The order of presentation of the premises and conclusion in the stimulus is also irrelevant. As long as an answer choice contains the same general parts as the stimulus, they need not be in the same order. The order of presentation does not affect the logical relationship that underlies the pieces. In summary the following element s do not need to be paralleled in a Parallel Reasoning question: o The topic of the stimulus o The order of presentation of the premises and conclusion in the stimulus Parallel Reasoning Elemental Attack - 1. Parallel the Reasoning

  1. Parallel the Conclusion
  2. Parallel the premises
  3. Parallel the Validity of the Argument
  4. Parallel the Abstract Structure of the Argument Parallel Flaw Questions - Since the February 1992 LSAT, whenever a Parallel Reasoning question contains flawed reasoning, it is stated in the question stem. If there is no mention of flawed reasoning in the question stem, the reasoning in the stimulus is valid (and vice versa). when a Parallel Reasoning stimulus contains flawed reasoning, we identify it as a parallel Flaw question. Like Flaw in the Reasoning questions, Parallel Flaw questions use many of the common forms of erroneous reasoning. The one important thing to remember is that rules for paralleling arguments discussed earlier apply. Equally to Parallel Flaw questions. o Here are two Parallel Flaw question stem examples. They are virtually identical to the previous Parallel Reasoning question stems with the exception that they contain a term indicating that the reasoning in the stimulus is invalid: "The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?" "The questionable pattern of reasoning in the argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?"

Resolve the Paradox - Resolve the Paradox questions are generally easy to spot because of their distinctive stimuli. Each stimulus presents a paradox or contradiction and the question stem asks you to resolve or explain the paradox. Because most people are very good at recognizing these paradox scenarios, they usually know after reading the stimulus that a Resolve the Paradox question is coming up.