LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

User avatar
Dave Hall
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby Dave Hall » Fri May 04, 2012 4:15 pm

emarxnj wrote:What this thread made me think of...

Image


But which one of us is which? No, seriously, WHICH ONE? (I wish I were in the NBA. Does that show at all?)

emarxnj wrote:If you guys had to offer just one piece of advice for the Logical Reasoning section, something that encompasses your entire approach the section, what would it be? I know that's probably a tough question considering people have written whole books on the subject, but I assume these will be on the general side of things. Thanks!


Attack that shit. Pretend the section is a series of arguments presented by opposing counsel, and it's your job to pull those arguments apart. You want to be engaged, active, and aggressive in your approach.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby Jeffort » Fri May 04, 2012 4:37 pm

emarxnj wrote:What this thread made me think of...

Image



If you guys had to offer just one piece of advice for the Logical Reasoning section, something that encompasses your entire approach the section, what would it be? I know that's probably a tough question considering people have written whole books on the subject, but I assume these will be on the general side of things. Thanks!


Fill in the bubble for the credited answer choice in the correct column and row of the answer sheet for each question before they call time and make sure you filled the bubbles all the way in.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Being serious about the question, use process of elimination a lot, it works well, especially on the high difficulty rated questions. All the correct answers are in front of you given that the test is multiple choice. You don't have to fully understand why the correct answer choice is correct during the short time you have to address each question under test conditions as long as you understand why the incorrect answer choices are wrong and are able to eliminate them.

Pre-phrasing is helpful to some degree on lower difficulty rated questions as long as you understand what doing that means, but it does not work well on the several top difficulty rated questions per LR section. For instance, strengthen and weaken questions. There is a myriad of different subject matter/topics the correct answer choice could talk about that you cannot predict after reading and analyzing the argument in the stimulus of the high difficulty rated questions. The high difficulty questions with correct answers that state something 'out of the blue' which you couldn't have predicted are part of what separates mid to high 160 range scorers from 170+ scorers.

This also applies to higher difficulty rated resolve/explain the apparent paradox/discrepancy questions and some necessary assumption questions. There is a particular necessary assumption EXCEPT question I have in mind that illustrates this and a 'Which of the following is most useful to evaluate the argument' EXCEPT question that does also. I'll try to dig out the PT references for the two I'm thinking of.

enigmabk
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:52 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby enigmabk » Fri May 04, 2012 4:47 pm

So glad this thread exists!

One question I had was if there is any concrete way to tell if one is 180 capable
or if they have just hit their intellectual limits and have plateaued on the test

my situation:

I scored a 160 on my cold diagnostic back in october and I have been taking tests since then

I have gone through the powerscore bibles multiple times and have done a great amount of full timed tests

Nowadays my scores have a HUGE volatility

Usually from 165-174 and most are right around 170.

So heres the dilemma

LG is almost always -0, however in LR, I usually get 1-2 wrong.

When I look back at the answers I got wrong and account for the ones i SHOULD have gotten right, my new "score" seemingly should be 178-180

When i look back over the LR problems in during review, its that "DOH! how did i miss that?" feeling
Then i always think " ok, on the next test, just be careful and get that -0 in both LR sections.

Nonetheless, I continue to miss 1-2 in each LR section.

Is this how the test is engineered in that I'll always be missing 1-2 even though these problems seem to be easy during review? Does anyone else have this issue where simple mistakes are done in LR and still they continue to be made on future tests even though one thinks "okay, time to read much more carefully this time around"?


Sorry for such a long post but this is something thats been killing me!

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5708
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby Easy-E » Fri May 04, 2012 6:01 pm

I don't want to quote spam, but thanks to both Dave and Jeffort for your responses!

Jeffort, I agree about the limited ability of prephrasing towards the more difficult questions, and obviously with weaken/strengthen, where entirely new information is pretty much expected. Combining that with what Noah touched on, I think a sort-of prephrasing of WRONG answer choices is pretty useful in those later (difficult) cases, which seems to keep in line with what you were saying. Not so much as stopping and actually thinking of them actively, but just knowing what wrong answer choices the test will throw at me for certain question types. Actually, that idea fits with Noah, Jeffort, and Dave's course advice. Thanks guys.

And I'd be interested to see the question you're referring to Jeffort, I really can't think of a necessary assumption EXCEPT question I've ever seen.

HBradly III
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:48 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby HBradly III » Fri May 04, 2012 7:54 pm

Dave Hall wrote:
emarxnj wrote:What this thread made me think of...

Image


But which one of us is which? No, seriously, WHICH ONE? (I wish I were in the NBA. Does that show at all?)

Sorry Dave,

You're not any of them. None of those guys lied about their stats or wear fake gold medals around their necks. But if we ever made forging documents an Olympic sport, you'd be in the starting five for sure.

enigmabk
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:52 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby enigmabk » Fri May 04, 2012 8:18 pm

HBradly III wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:
emarxnj wrote:What this thread made me think of...

Image


But which one of us is which? No, seriously, WHICH ONE? (I wish I were in the NBA. Does that show at all?)

Sorry Dave,

You're not any of them. None of those guys lied about their stats or wear fake gold medals around their necks. But if we ever made forging documents an Olympic sport, you'd be in the starting five for sure.



^ this guy really just made a profile to troll dave hall?

i think you should be flattered Dave

User avatar
aekea
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:10 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby aekea » Fri May 04, 2012 8:40 pm

enigmabk wrote:
HBradly III wrote:Sorry Dave,

You're not any of them. None of those guys lied about their stats or wear fake gold medals around their necks. But if we ever made forging documents an Olympic sport, you'd be in the starting five for sure.



^ this guy really just made a profile to troll dave hall?

i think you should be flattered Dave

That's actually his third profile in the last two days, hence the suffix "III." I assume his other ones were banned.

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby LSAT Blog » Sat May 05, 2012 12:45 pm

emarxnj wrote:I really can't think of a necessary assumption EXCEPT question I've ever seen.


They're certainly uncommon, and there may be others, but here are three I know of:

PrepTest 20, Section 1, Question 20
PrepTest 22, Section 2, Question 19
PrepTest 26, Section 2, Question 22

User avatar
outlookingin
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby outlookingin » Sat May 05, 2012 1:42 pm

Dave Hall wrote:
outlookingin wrote:Hey experts. I have another kind of huge question here, but maybe it has a simple answer:

How do you treat the relationship between causal, conditional, and formal logic? I'm sure these are all in some ways the same thing but since I've only read the PowerScore Bible I'm using their nomenclature...

So what I'm asking, I guess, is this: what is the overlap between these? How are they different? How should I treat them differently on the test?

They're like Russian nesting dolls: causal claims are one type of conditional statement, and conditional statements are one piece of formal logic.

So, one thing you may want to begin to do is symbolize causal claims conditionally, in this way:

Cause → Effect

Your approach seems correct, and doesn't necessarily require this adjustment.


Nice! Thank you for that succinct response.

wanderlust
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby wanderlust » Sat May 05, 2012 1:46 pm

Thanks to every guru for their generous help!

My question is PT 33-S1-Q19

Is my following understanding of the gap in the historian's argument correct?

The leap of logic the historian takes in making his conclusion is that "while the populace might be vulnerable to demagogues", it does not mean that the opportunists will actually attract enough voter to topple the benign regimes. In other words, the claim that "the populace might be vulnerable to" is quite vague. It could be the case that while people are vulnerable to demagogue, they nevertheless support more legitimate call for reform.

I guess my difficulty with this question is, normally when we negate the correct choice, we widen the gap, but leave the "fact" or "evidence" standing. Here, when we negate the correct choice, namely, people have the power to tell the difference between true and false call for reform, then it seems, the populace is no longer vulnerable to demagogues.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby Jeffort » Sat May 05, 2012 6:41 pm

LSAT Blog wrote:
emarxnj wrote:I really can't think of a necessary assumption EXCEPT question I've ever seen.


They're certainly uncommon, and there may be others, but here are three I know of:

PrepTest 20, Section 1, Question 20
PrepTest 22, Section 2, Question 19
PrepTest 26, Section 2, Question 22



Thanks for digging up those references Steve. Image

Those are a few I was thinking of, but mainly PT 22 Section 2, #19 since it is all about cause and effect reasoning. There are a few more out there, but I have to search my spreadsheets where I classified question types one by one, test by test with a separate file for each PT.

The 'evaluate the argument' EXCEPT question I was thinking of is PT# 45 (December 2004), second LR section, question number 11. The one about Cod Bay and bluefin cod population.
It's another great question dealing with cause and effect reasoning and logical ways to strengthen or weaken those types of arguments.

There are more than these four example questions out there, but as you said, they are rare. However, when they pop-up they can negatively influence a score if one is not prepared to deal with them properly since they almost always tend to be high difficulty rated/frequently missed questions.

There are also some really hard/frequently missed resolve/explain the apparent paradox EXCEPT questions. I'll search for them in my databases as time permits. Resolve/explain questions are frequently really easy, but sometimes really frigging difficult.

User avatar
princeR
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:10 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby princeR » Sat May 05, 2012 8:41 pm

In general, if we get a benefit but it is never qualified (no weaknesses) is the correct answer going to have something to do with?

Flaw: Overlooks the negatives
Necessary: That any potential negatives wont outweigh the benefits

Sound about right?

Kind of like whenever we are giving "choices", the answer is going to correlate to the choices.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby Jeffort » Sat May 05, 2012 9:57 pm

princeR wrote:In general, if we get a benefit but it is never qualified (no weaknesses) is the correct answer going to have something to do with?

Flaw: Overlooks the negatives
Necessary: That any potential negatives wont outweigh the benefits

Sound about right?

Kind of like whenever we are giving "choices", the answer is going to correlate to the choices.


That's about right.

When an argument concludes some particular thing is a benefit/good thing without addressing/considering other options or possible evidence that the concluded 'good thing' may not be all that great, the correct answer choice will usually exploit that relationship in some way, whether it be a weaken, strengthen, evaluate, or flawed method of reasoning question.

It's a commonly repeated argument structure in LSAT LR questions. Many of the glaring examples use superlatives in the argument such as 'best', 'most effective/likely to do/achieve', and other language in the conclusion and/or in the premises and sometimes in answer choices.

A similar variation is where an argument concludes that a certain thing or tactic is the ONLY way to accomplish something/cause something to happen or makes a recommendation 'should' conclusion about how to solve a problem or best accomplish something.

The flaw can be described in many ways and has several related variations.

Presumes without justification that there are not better solutions.
Fails to consider alternative solutions and/or possibilities.
etc.

It's a bread and butter flawed LSAT LR argument type used commonly in several question types.

User avatar
man_utd_4l
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:53 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby man_utd_4l » Sun May 06, 2012 12:12 am

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:Off the top of my head, the most common form of what you're asking about is when the causal conclusion that is based on a correlation. There's also conditional conclusions in lots of sufficient assumption questions, which are in effect strengthen questions.

I think you know how to weaken or strengthen causal conclusions based on a correlation premise--show another causal direction is true, or invalidate it. Perhaps I'm not getting what you're saying, but I'm not seeing how those types of answers "take the conditional into account."

For suff. assumption questions with a conditional conclusion, you're finding the missing link, which again doesn't even need to reference the conclusion (though it often does) since the chain's gap can be in an earlier link.

I hope that helps.


Thanks for your reply. It helped to clear up some of my issues. I guess I will try to boil down the rest of my question to its most basic principle. If you have a LR question that concluded with a conditional statement is it likely that you will encounter a number of wrong answer choices that would otherwise fit the purposes of the questions, but fail to do so because they don't meet the situation set out in the conditional conclusion (making them irrelevant).

Sorry if this question is still a bit confusing. I have been looking for questions with conditional conclusions and trying to seek out patterns in them.

wanderlust
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby wanderlust » Sun May 06, 2012 12:46 am

wanderlust wrote:Thanks to every guru for their generous help!

My question is PT 33-S1-Q19

Is my following understanding of the gap in the historian's argument correct?

The leap of logic the historian takes in making his conclusion is that "while the populace might be vulnerable to demagogues", it does not mean that the opportunists will actually attract enough voter to topple the benign regimes. In other words, the claim that "the populace might be vulnerable to" is quite vague. It could be the case that while people are vulnerable to demagogue, they nevertheless support more legitimate call for reform.

I guess my difficulty with this question is, normally when we negate the correct choice, we widen the gap, but leave the "fact" or "evidence" standing. Here, when we negate the correct choice, namely, people have the power to tell the difference between true and false call for reform, then it seems, the populace is no longer vulnerable to demagogues.


Could any Guru please take a second to answer my question?
Much appreciated!

User avatar
outlookingin
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby outlookingin » Sun May 06, 2012 4:28 am

OK I've got one, and I'm really curious to see how this pans out:

PT 62 S4 Q24 - Arthritis Sufferers and the Weather

I just read over the whole MLSAT thread on this and what I'm gathering from mshermn's remarks is:

The reason (B) is wrong is because the premises do not support the inference that the beliefs of the arthritis sufferers are causing their increased pain intensity.

But I don't follow that.

The stimulus clearly states that the sufferer's beliefs are playing a part in what they feel is a genuine causal relationship. They are "convinced of the existence of such a correlation [between the weather and their pain]" and, thus, they gave accounts of feeling increased pain intensity when the relevant feature of the weather occurred. In my mind, their beliefs are affecting their assessment of the intensity of that pain.

Earlier in that thread it was suggested that the problem was with "assessment of the intensity of that pain" not being equatable to the sufferer's feeling "increased intensity of pain." Could that be it?

Oh no I'm so twisted... HELP!

BalanceCare
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby BalanceCare » Sun May 06, 2012 12:04 pm

(Cross-posted from Dave's thread to see what yall think -- sorry for double-post!)

Here's a general question about LG. As I go through games for the second time, completing them slowly to see how they work, I realize that in many cases, you could do almost no setup and still easily answer each question correctly. 90% of the time, doing anything beyond writing the rules and drawing one master diagram with almost nothing in it is just a waste of time.

Is it safe to try working that way? I'm not sure if I should trust this assumption as I've done these games before. Also, there are those 10% of games where the rules are actually very restrictive even if they don't seem that way at first blush, and if you haven't spent a minute making the inferences, you'll be slowed down in the game.

At the same time, I'm a retaker, and I had done games many times before studying for this retake, and in the past, I never came to this realization (of how simple these things are if you just understand the rules, relax, and apply them). Also, I'm kind of stuck at the point where even easy static ordering or grouping games take 7 or 8 minutes, and I really would like to be at the point where I'm finishing them in 4 or 5 minutes, so that I have time to figure out thornier curveball-filled games. Is this what I should do to make the jump?

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

User avatar
timmydoeslsat
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby timmydoeslsat » Sun May 06, 2012 11:04 pm

MLBrandow wrote:PT19-S4-Q21

This is a formal logic parallel flaw question, and after spending possibly 3 minutes or more to solve it, I feel like, although somewhat rare, there must be a faster way to deal with this kind of question.

Here was my process:

1) Read question stem; identify parallel flaw question.

2) Identify formal logic; immediately diagram the simulus:

Not all TF are FP
All FM are TF
--> Not all FM are FP

Thanks for any feedback.

I just did this problem and I remember you had a question on this one. I see that Dave gave his take on this one - and did a fantastic job.

For me, I did diagram this one, and I thought it would be beneficial for you to see what this flaw is:

Tenure some ~FP
Ling ---> Tenure
__________________
Ling some ~FP

The reason this is flawed is that it is attempting to draw an inference about a quantifying statement of a necessary condition. We can draw inferences, think syllogism, when we have the quantifying statement on the sufficient side.


This argument is doing this:

C ---> A some B

It is attempting to infer that C some B, which we cannot do. We know that C will lead to A, but we do not know whether the A in question has a B with it or not.

Whereas a valid inference can be seen with this:

C some A ---> B

We can conclude that C some B. We know that C has commonality with A, and every single A has a B. Therefore, we do have C some B.

User avatar
timmydoeslsat
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby timmydoeslsat » Mon May 07, 2012 1:03 pm

outlookingin wrote:OK I've got one, and I'm really curious to see how this pans out:

PT 62 S4 Q24 - Arthritis Sufferers and the Weather

I just read over the whole MLSAT thread on this and what I'm gathering from mshermn's remarks is:

The reason (B) is wrong is because the premises do not support the inference that the beliefs of the arthritis sufferers are causing their increased pain intensity.

But I don't follow that.

The stimulus clearly states that the sufferer's beliefs are playing a part in what they feel is a genuine causal relationship. They are "convinced of the existence of such a correlation [between the weather and their pain]" and, thus, they gave accounts of feeling increased pain intensity when the relevant feature of the weather occurred. In my mind, their beliefs are affecting their assessment of the intensity of that pain.

Earlier in that thread it was suggested that the problem was with "assessment of the intensity of that pain" not being equatable to the sufferer's feeling "increased intensity of pain." Could that be it?

Oh no I'm so twisted... HELP!


I wanted to get attempt to help before the certified experts read this post. Perhaps they can comment on my interpretation of this question.

The reason why B is incorrect is due to it taking into the question the pain suffered by the sufferers. The stimulus, by which I mean the study performed, was not hinting at the idea that the pain felt by the sufferers was exaggerated or not taking place. Rather, it was pointing out that this posited cause simply was not responsible for the pain being suffered.

Tell me if you agree with this.

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby bp shinners » Mon May 07, 2012 1:33 pm

outlookingin wrote:OK I've got one, and I'm really curious to see how this pans out:

PT 62 S4 Q24 - Arthritis Sufferers and the Weather

I just read over the whole MLSAT thread on this and what I'm gathering from mshermn's remarks is:

The reason (B) is wrong is because the premises do not support the inference that the beliefs of the arthritis sufferers are causing their increased pain intensity.

But I don't follow that.

The stimulus clearly states that the sufferer's beliefs are playing a part in what they feel is a genuine causal relationship. They are "convinced of the existence of such a correlation [between the weather and their pain]" and, thus, they gave accounts of feeling increased pain intensity when the relevant feature of the weather occurred. In my mind, their beliefs are affecting their assessment of the intensity of that pain.

Earlier in that thread it was suggested that the problem was with "assessment of the intensity of that pain" not being equatable to the sufferer's feeling "increased intensity of pain." Could that be it?

Oh no I'm so twisted... HELP!


My problem with answer choice B is that it mixes up what's going on in the heads of the arthritis sufferers.

In their heads, they have an increase in the intensity of pain in their knee. From that, they conclude that it's going to rain in three days. The beliefs about the intensity of their pain is affecting their assessment of what is going to happen in the future, i.e. it's going to rain. Answer choice B creates a situation where they know it's going to rain in 3 days, and therefore that affects how they assess their pain today. It's reversing the causal relationship purported by these people to exist.

On top of that, the study is clearly meant to discredit the belief that arthritis sufferers can predict the weather ("it tried but failed to find any correlation"). For these 'fill in the blank' questions, I'm not trying to jump that far away from the stimulus and make additional deductions. I'm just trying to, more or less, sum up the ideas we've already discussed. Answer choice B seems to feed into the arthritis sufferers' beliefs; answer choice C reflects that the study indicated that they're imagining it. C is completely in line with what the study showed, and it combines my two ideas (we didn't find any proof; arthritis sufferers still believe it), making it the perfect completion to the argument.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5708
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby Easy-E » Mon May 07, 2012 2:41 pm

LSAT Blog wrote:
emarxnj wrote:I really can't think of a necessary assumption EXCEPT question I've ever seen.


They're certainly uncommon, and there may be others, but here are three I know of:

PrepTest 20, Section 1, Question 20
PrepTest 22, Section 2, Question 19
PrepTest 26, Section 2, Question 22


Thanks Steve, I'll check these out. Can I assume these are less common in recent tests, or are they generally pretty sporadic?



Jeffort wrote:There are also some really hard/frequently missed resolve/explain the apparent paradox EXCEPT questions. I'll search for them in my databases as time permits. Resolve/explain questions are frequently really easy, but sometimes really frigging difficult.



I remember seeing this question set-up before, but specifics elude me. I've noticed a resolve question can be either incredibly easy (resolution is exactly what I thought as I read), or quite difficult (when that doesn't happen).

User avatar
man_utd_4l
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:53 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby man_utd_4l » Mon May 07, 2012 6:04 pm

Question about 44.2.14:

I have evaluated this question and understand why each of the answers is credited/incorrect. However, I am looking for a little clarification on the difference between inference questions that ask you "Which one of the following must be true/cannot be true" and questions that ask "Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

While I was going through the Manhattan LSAT Forum on this question I can across the following written by "mshermn":

This one teaches us a lot about inference questions. Look at the difference between the following two question stems

1. If each of the statements above is true, which one of the following must also be true?

2. Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

Sometimes in the second phrasing the stimulus is not a series of facts, but rather an argument. It's not frequent, but it does appear consistently in the logical reasoning section. If this happens, treat the question like an Assumption question. Bridge the gap between evidence and the conclusion. For, if the conclusion is going to be true, the assumption must be true.


Noah, can you expand on this concept for me. If there is a passage in the MLSAT LR Guide you can point me to the passages.

For the other experts, how do you approach these two different types of questions?

User avatar
Dave Hall
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby Dave Hall » Mon May 07, 2012 6:16 pm

wanderlust wrote:
wanderlust wrote:Thanks to every guru for their generous help!

My question is PT 33-S1-Q19

Is my following understanding of the gap in the historian's argument correct?

The leap of logic the historian takes in making his conclusion is that "while the populace might be vulnerable to demagogues", it does not mean that the opportunists will actually attract enough voter to topple the benign regimes. In other words, the claim that "the populace might be vulnerable to" is quite vague. It could be the case that while people are vulnerable to demagogue, they nevertheless support more legitimate call for reform.

I guess my difficulty with this question is, normally when we negate the correct choice, we widen the gap, but leave the "fact" or "evidence" standing. Here, when we negate the correct choice, namely, people have the power to tell the difference between true and false call for reform, then it seems, the populace is no longer vulnerable to demagogues.


Could any Guru please take a second to answer my question?
Much appreciated!

Hey, wanderlust,

Here, notice that the claim about vulnerability is a subsidiary (or intermediate) conclusion. This is the gap the test writers are exposing with (D) - the distance between the lack of education and the vulnerability of the populace. In classic Necessary Assumption fashion, negating (D) ruins that conclusion.

The difference is that here, the conclusion being ruined isn't the main conclusion.

This points out for us the possibility that a weakness may appear anywhere within a passage - any time two ideas are not explicitly linked, we have a flaw; even between evidence and a sub claim based on that evidence.

User avatar
Dave Hall
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby Dave Hall » Mon May 07, 2012 6:24 pm

man_utd_4l wrote:Question about 44.2.14:

I have evaluated this question and understand why each of the answers is credited/incorrect. However, I am looking for a little clarification on the difference between inference questions that ask you "Which one of the following must be true/cannot be true" and questions that ask "Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

For the other experts, how do you approach these two different types of questions?

For me, there are two ways of approaching your question:

1. The denotative. The meaningful difference between these types of questions is the literal, denotative demand that each makes. The first type makes it clear that the right answer will be something that you can prove, without any doubt. The second leaves open the possibility that the right answer is not fully proved (this is the difference between deductive logic in the first instance, and inductive logic in the second).

However...

2. The practical. In my own work, I make no distinction between these two phrasings. In both cases, I head into answer choices looking for the one among them that I know to be true. I do find that sometimes (I'll call it 15% of all cases of the latter wording, but that's not a statistically rigorous analysis) this means that the right answer to "strongly supported" questions is more aggressive than I'd normally like from an Inference question. But I'm able to just get over that.

Because, you know, the Dude abides.

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: LSAT Q&A: Ask the Experts

Postby LSAT Blog » Mon May 07, 2012 10:41 pm

emarxnj wrote:
LSAT Blog wrote:
emarxnj wrote:I really can't think of a necessary assumption EXCEPT question I've ever seen.


They're certainly uncommon, and there may be others, but here are three I know of:

PrepTest 20, Section 1, Question 20
PrepTest 22, Section 2, Question 19
PrepTest 26, Section 2, Question 22


Thanks Steve, I'll check these out. Can I assume these are less common in recent tests, or are they generally pretty sporadic?


I don't recall seeing any in the newest tests. You can safely assume that they're rare.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”