LSAT Blueprint

Sufficiency Indicators

If, when, whenever, all, any, each, every

Necessity Indicators

Then, only, only if, only when, needs, requires, must

Only (What to watch out for?)

Only if, and only does not always immediately precede the necessary condition. FIND THE REFERENT of only

Replace with "If Not

Unless, until, without, except

Logic Game (Flow chart)

1) Read intro/ rules 2) Build set- up 3) symbolize rules 4) CHECK RULES X2 5) Identify any randoms 6) Make deductions 7) Time for scenarios 8) Attack the questions

Modality: Necessity

Must, Is/are, will, do/does, always

Modality: Probability

Probably, likely, usually

Modality: Possibility

May, might, could, can, occasionally

Quantification: Necessity

all, any, every (100%)

Quantification: Probability

most, majority (>50%)

Quantification: Possibility

some, many, few, several (>0%)

Logical force: Strong

will, must, is, are, do, does, always, all, any, every, almost all

Logical force: Moderate

probably, likely, usually, most of the time, majority of the time, most, majority

Logical force: Weak

may, might, can, could, often, sometimes, occasionally, significant number, several, many, few,some

Must be True

Definitely proven true by the information in the stimulus (incorrect answers could be false)
how to approach
- use only information present
- look for conditional statements
- pay close attention to the logical force of the propositions
If conditional
-diagram
- anticipate valid inferences (transitive conclusions, contrapositives)
If there are no conditional statements
-look for other relationships between the statements
-anticipate a weak answer choice
Common incorrect answers
- invalid conditional inferences (converse/ inverse)
- statements too strong/ outside of scope
- causes or explanation of phenomenon discussed in stimulus
- hypotheses about the future or what would have happened if something changed

~MBT

Very strongly supported by the information in the stimulus (doesn't absolutely need to be true)
how to approach
- use only information present
- look for conditional statements
- pay close attention to the logical force of the propositions
If conditional
-diagram
- anticipate valid inferences (transitive conclusions, contrapositives)
If there are no conditional statements
-look for other relationships between the statements
-anticipate a weak answer choice
-
anticipate a summary of the stimulus

MBF

Definitively proven false by the statements in the stimulus
how to approach
- use only information present
- look for conditional statements
- pay close attention to the logical force of the propositions
If conditional
-diagram
- anticipate valid inferences (transitive conclusions, contrapositives)
If there are no conditional statements
- look for relationships between the statements
- anticipate an answer choice that would violate these relationships
Common incorrect answers
- statements that could be true based on the stimulus, even if they are unlikely
- statements outside of the scope of the stimulus

Main Point

The main conclusion of the argument
How to approach the stimulus
- look for key works that indicate premise (since, because) and conclusions (therefore, thus, hence, so, it follows that)
- look for words that indicate a shift in attitude (but, however)
- look for evaluative statements that indicate the author's attitude
- do not hate time evaluating the validity of the argument
Common correct answers
= expressions of the author's attitude or prescriptive statements (should, ought)
= a statement that is supported by premisses but that doe not itself support anything
Common incorrect answers
- statements that do not need to be true
-subsidiary conclusions/ premises

Describe

An accurate description of the reasoning employed in the stimulus
how to approach the stimulus (one speaker)
-identify the conclusion and relevant premises
- look for one of the prevalent argument forms
- paraphrase how the argument supports the conclusion
how to approach the stimulus (two speakers)
- identify the conclusion and relevant premise of the first argument
- look for weaknesses in the first argument
- read the response and look for one of the prevalent argument forms (generally the two speakers will disagree)
Common incorrect answers
- prevalent argument forms that are not used in the stimulus
- descriptions that characterize part of the argument correctly, but either miss an important aspect of the argument or describe an aspect incorrectly

Prevalent forms of argumentation (DESCRIBE)

Rejecting alternatives
-applying a general principle
-appealing to an authority
-using a counterexample
-making an analogy
-using a line of reasoning to draw an absurd conclusion
- proposing an alternate cause for an observed effect
- undermining a premise or conclusion (generally 2nd perspective)
- offering new evidence/ challenging an assumption (2nd perspective)

Flaw

A description of the fallacy committed in the stimulus
How to approach stimulus:
- Identify the conclusion and premises
- Ask why the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises (keep in mind the prevalent fallacies)
- paraphrase the fallacy in your own words
Common Characteristics of incorrect answers:
- Prevalent fallacies that are not committed in the stimulus
- characterizations that miss an important aspect of the fallacy
- characterizations that describe an aspect of the fallacy incorrectly
- characterizations that describe a part of the argument that is not flawed

Exclusivity

1) An argument will fail to establish a list of options that is exhaustive/ insufficiently eliminate some of the options
2) an argument will falsely assume that two options are exclusive (cannot have a combination of both)

Sampling

1) Sample gourd must be an accurate rep of the group it is ripping
2) Those surveyed have to a) understand the survey b) not have any motive to misrepresent
3) Any conclusions made from survey data must be intelligibly related to the survey questions

Composition

1) From the fact that a whole has a certain property, it concludes that all/ most/ some of the parts MUST as well
2) From the face that one/most/ all of the parts have a certain property it concludes that the whole must have these properties as well

Fallacy of Converse/ Inverse

a-->b conclude b -->a inverse a--> b conclude not a---> not b

Causation

Even if one thing applies another; it is not sufficient to prove that the first thing cause the second .
Correlation does not imply causation
1) Another element could be the cause = ( a. another thing may be responsible for the effect in question or b. another element may be responsible for both the purported cause and the effect)
2) Reversing cause and effect = (common mistake to assume that one must be the cause when the other could be. When evaluating a causal conclusion, check to see if the use and its effect can be reversed)

Equivocation

1) Shift in meaning (meanings of key words shift in meaning)
2) Related, but distinct, concepts ( equivocate between two related, yet distance, concepts as though they are the same)

Comparison

Analogy- use the fact that 2 things have a property in common to imply that they must have one or more other properties in common.
2 items compared must be relevantly similar to each other
- Fallacy to make an analogy between two items that differ in crucial respects
- Fallacy to make inappropriate or incomplete comparisons of 2 things

Ad Hominem

1) Attack a person's character
2) Inconsistent behavior (hypocrites doesn't make the advice false)

Absence of Evidence

1) Failure to prove that a claim is false is taken as evidence that the claim is true
2) Failure to prove that a claim is true is taken as evidence that the claim is false

Circular Reasoning

When an arguments conclusion simply restates one or more premises

Percentage vs Amount

1) % cannot justify conclusions regarding definitive amounts
2) Definitive amounts cannot justify conclusions regarding %

Temporal

Simply because something was the case in the past does not imply that it is the case now or will be in the future
1) The attempt to draw definitive conclusions about one time period (past, present or future) from premises about another time person (past, present, or future)

Perception vs Reality

1) Inappropriate Authority- it is a fallacy to rely on an authority when the topic in question is outside their area of expertise
2) Irrelevant opinions- fallacy to rely on the opinions of people when their opinions are irrelevant to the truth of the issue at hand

Flaw- Logical Force

Modality (possible vs definite)
- the fact that something is possible or even probable, does not entail that it is certain
Quantification (all vs most vs some)
- some premises cannot justify most or all conclusions. most premises cannot justify all conclusions

Parallel

An argument that has the same logical structure as the argument in the stimulus (same # of premises, same # of terms, same validity status and a conclusion with the same modality, quantifier and logical structure)
How to approach the stimulus
- identify the conclusion and the relevant premises
- ascertain whether the argument is valid or invalid
- determine whether there are conditional statement to diagram
If there are conditional statement
- diagram the argument
- look for valid argument forms ( contrastive, transitive)
If there are no conditional statements
= ask how the author supports the conclusion
= make a motto to paraphrase the reasoning in the stimulus
Common wrong answers
- invalid arguments
-arguments in which the subject matter same as ?
- arguments in which scope, modality or quantification differs from the stimulus

Parallel flaw

An argument that commits the same fallacy that is committed in the stimulus
How to approach stimulus
- identify the conclusion and the relevant premises
- determine whether diagram
- characterize the flaw that is committed
If diagram:
- look for invalid argument forms (Converse/ inverse)
Common wrong answers:
Valid argument
same subject matter
commits fallacy that differs from the stimulus

Role

An accurate characterization of the role the specific statement play in the stimulus
Common incorrect answers:
characterization of other parts of the argument
characterization that could not be part of the stimulus (assumption)

Disagree/ Agree

A statement about which the two speakers have conflicting/ agreeing opinions
= statements that both speakers have an opinion about

Strengthen

New information that provides additional support for the conclusion drawn in the stimulus
How to approach
- identify the conclusion and relevant premises
- determine whether the conclusion asserts a causal relationship
- look for any flaws or assumptions in the argument
of argument is a causal claim
- diagram
- anticipate the common means of strengthening (same cause, same effect, no cause, no effect, eliminating alternative cause)
If the argument is not a causal claim
- anticipate answer choices that addresses a weakness in the argument
- LOOK FOR STRONG ANSWERS
Common incorrect
- statement that cannot provide enough support
- irrevalent/ oos
-weaken

Weaken

New information that provides evidence against the conclusion drawn in the stimulus
How to approach
-identify the conclusion and the relevant premises
-determine whether the conclusion asserts a causal relationship
-look for flaws/ assumption
if the argument is causal
diagram
common weakening- cause w/o effect, effect w/o cause, alternative cause
Not causal
- choice that expose a weakness in the argument
-look for strong answer choice
Incorrect
- oss
-strengthen

Crux

A missing piece of information that would critically affect the validity of the argument
how to approach
- identify conclusion/ relevant premises
- determine whether the conclusion assets causal relationship
- look for assumption that could affect the validity of the argument (there will always be an assumption)
causal claim
- diagram
- answer will help value the given cause
not causal
-answer choice whose true or falsity will +/ - argument
wrong
oss
relevant to the argument but to not directly impact conclusion

Sufficient Assumption

An assumption that guarantees the conclusion in the stimulus is validly drawn (deal maker)
How to approach stimulus: 1) Identify the conclusion and the relevant premises
2) Look for conditional statements (diagram/ anticipate the missing relationship or its contrapositive)
If there are no conditional statements
- Identify major assumption in the argument
Anticipate a logical bridge from the premise to the conclusion
In correct answers: statements dos, weak statements (may, might, can, could, some, possibly) statements that strengthen the conclusion but fall short of proving that is true

Necessary

An assumption that must be true in order for the conclusion to be properly inferred (when negated, the correct answer invalidates the argument)
look for an equivocation between the premise and conclusion
identify other assumptions made in the argument
common incorrect answers: statements that are irrelevant to the conclusion, strong statements (does, must, always, only, all)
statements that are done dos

Sufficient Answers are often

1) strong 2) take the form of a conditional statement
answers can mix up the premise order
new in the conclusion-- will have to be in the answer
popular wrong answers- converse is really common new info in conclusion, new info can only be written A--> NOT A-->

Necessary negate quantifiers

some- none, most-not most (>50%), all- not all some don't, anyone- someone

RC: Implication= Specific Reference

According to the passage, ...
The passage refers to each of the following EXCEPT:
MBT, ~MBT. Ask you to draw inferences based on information presented.
Correct answer must be supported by information in the passage

RC: Implication= Viewpoint

The passage suggests... would most likely to agree with one of the following statements?
Discern what proponent of an argument would be likely to agree or disagree with:
- Identify the passage structure, author's attitude

RC: Characterization= Main Point

Primary purpose of passage is to
Common wrong answers
1) says something the passage didn't say
2) too specific
3) author had attitude and doesn't reflect it in answer choice

RC: Characterization= Role/Organization

The primary function of the last paragraph of the passage is to?
Which one of the following best describes the organization of the passage?
Will explain what role it places
4/5 premise--> what conclusion does it support
For examples- what does it answer

RC: Characterization= Author's Attitude

Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude
The AA always tends to be toward the center of the spectrum, more often they express partial disapproval or firm support

RC: Characterization= Parallel

Same as parallel L.R.

RC: Operation: Strengthen/ Weaken

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the passage's position concerning ...
- causation claims? look for strong answers

RC: Title Questions

Some questions ask you to locate a title for the passage
- reference subject matter/ authors opinion if any

RC: Extension Questions

add info to end of passage
- relate to main idea
= does not open any huge new doors