Types of Questions LR Forum

[Suits99]

Before I ask this question, note that I started studying for the LSAT 2 weeks ago.

I am curious if the two types of questions in the LR section are broken up into conditional reasoning and cause and effect reasoning? So far, I have been studying conditional reasoning and cause and effect reasoning, and I am wondering if all LR questions revolve around these two basic concepts?

Thanks!

[Typhoon24]

Some of the questions do indeed revolve around those topics but certainly not all. Manhattan and powerscore breakdown the question types nicely in their LR guides. You can expect 4-6 conditional and c and e questions combined in one section at most.

[okaygo]

The key to cracking LR is understanding assumption family questions (neccesary/sufficent assumption, strength/weaken, identify a flaw etc) and having a strategy for parallel reasoning/flaw questions.

In assumption family/flaw questions just look for the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

[Suits99]

I have the powerscore LR bible. Do you think it is worth the bulk of my time to study conditional reasoning and cause and effect? Or should I evenly study all the chapters in the powerscore LR bible?

[Suits99]

The key to cracking LR is understanding assumption family questions (neccesary/sufficent assumption, strength/weaken, identify a flaw etc) and having a strategy for parallel reasoning/flaw questions.

In assumption family/flaw questions just look for the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

If you have the powerscore LR bible, you are saying to focus on chapters 7, 9, and 13?

[Typhoon24]

Definitely study everything. Powerscore I think breaks it down into 4 question types.
However, the majority of the questions in the section are either inference or assumption family questions, so focusing there in the beginning is a good idea.

[Cambridge LSAT]

As the poster above noted, these concepts (conditional reasoning and causal reasoning) are regularly tested, but not in every question. Manhattan LSAT breaks LR questions into two broad families: assumption and non-assumption. In general, questions from the assumption family are attached to arguments whereas non-assumption questions are attached to informational stimuli. Have a look at our LSAT questions types page for more information.

[okaygo]

The key to cracking LR is understanding assumption family questions (neccesary/sufficent assumption, strength/weaken, identify a flaw etc) and having a strategy for parallel reasoning/flaw questions.

In assumption family/flaw questions just look for the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

If you have the powerscore LR bible, you are saying to focus on chapters 7, 9, and 13?

Sorry, I only have Manhattan for LR.

[Suits99]

I want to purchase the Manhattan LR book now, however I am worried that the strategies used in the Powerscore LR book will be too different, or even contradict, the strategies used in the Manhattan LR book.

[okaygo]

Well, I don't know about LR but Ido have Powerscore LGB and Manhattan LG and didn't find myself getting confused by the two different methods. I think it was more supplemental and a matter of picking which strategies work best for you.

[Daily_Double]

Before I ask this question, note that I started studying for the LSAT 2 weeks ago.

I am curious if the two types of questions in the LR section are broken up into conditional reasoning and cause and effect reasoning? So far, I have been studying conditional reasoning and cause and effect reasoning, and I am wondering if all LR questions revolve around these two basic concepts?

Thanks!

Nope. Conditional reasoning shows up frequently, most often in Must Be True, Sufficient Assumption, and Flaw questions. Causation appears most often in Strengthen and Weaken questions.

Some books organize the question types differently than others. Here's how I view it:

ASSUMPTION:

Necessary Assumption
Sufficient Assumption
Strengthen
Weaken
Flaw
Evaluate the Argument
Principle (Identify) / Principle Match - essentially there's an overall assumption guiding the argument to its core. You need to reason from the premises to the core, basically these are one huge S/A question

INFERENCE:

Must Be True
Most Strongly Supported
Complete the Passage
Cannot Be True
Main Conclusion
Point at Issue
Paradox
Principle (Apply) - first you must identify the principle in the stimuli, and then apply it to the answers. I view these as MSS questions with a twist

STRUCTURE:

Method (Argument)
Method (Statement)
Parallel (Reasoning)
Parallel (Flaw)

Assumption - these questions revolve around a gap, which is to say, there's at least one reason why the core might not necessarily follow from the supporting premises. Thus, all questions in the assumption family are flawed in some way. Wrong answers for these questions will reverse the logic, or not address the core, although sometimes you do see premise boosters/premise weakeners as correct answers, this is rare though, you just have to eliminate as many as possible on your first pass. There are additional things to look for in these such as a correlation supporting causation, causation in general, conditionality in general, and formal logic. For these questions, you must work towards identifying the gap, coming up with a potential answer, then move to the answers.

Inference - these questions require you to use the information provided to you in the stimulus to select an answer, which must follow from that information. Scope is your biggest obstacle in these, you have to possess a very narrow sense of scope, cut down the wrong answers, diagram if you must, and remember the information is in the stimulus, and the correct answer will always follow from it. I'll diagram conditional and formal logic, the rest I usually just work from my notations in the stimulus. I usually look for very un-absolute language in these, because words and phrases like "some may," "one cause may be," "(this thing) might," are so un-absolute that they can almost always be supported, if not the most strongly supported. Also know that there’s usually not a core in these, just a bunch of statements, usually containing conditional or formal logic, or causation, you need to develop a sense of what is important and what is not. The sad thing is that the only way to do this is to do an obnoxious number of inference family questions.

Structure - these questions require you to understand the abstract nature of the argument and pay attention to subtle shifts in terms, degree, division, etc. and select an answer, which either conforms to the information in the stimulus, or to describe it in an abstract fashion. I usually diagram matching questions; argument part questions are usually pretty straightforward.

[Suits99]

Before I ask this question, note that I started studying for the LSAT 2 weeks ago.

I am curious if the two types of questions in the LR section are broken up into conditional reasoning and cause and effect reasoning? So far, I have been studying conditional reasoning and cause and effect reasoning, and I am wondering if all LR questions revolve around these two basic concepts?

Thanks!

Nope. Conditional reasoning shows up frequently, most often in Must Be True, Sufficient Assumption, and Flaw questions. Causation appears most often in Strengthen and Weaken questions.

Some books organize the question types differently than others. Here's how I view it:

ASSUMPTION:

Necessary Assumption
Sufficient Assumption
Strengthen
Weaken
Flaw
Evaluate the Argument
Principle (Identify) / Principle Match - essentially there's an overall assumption guiding the argument to its core. You need to reason from the premises to the core, basically these are one huge S/A question

INFERENCE:

Must Be True
Most Strongly Supported
Complete the Passage
Cannot Be True
Main Conclusion
Point at Issue
Paradox
Principle (Apply) - first you must identify the principle in the stimuli, and then apply it to the answers. I view these as MSS questions with a twist

STRUCTURE:

Method (Argument)
Method (Statement)
Parallel (Reasoning)
Parallel (Flaw)

Assumption - these questions revolve around a gap, which is to say, there's at least one reason why the core might not necessarily follow from the supporting premises. Thus, all questions in the assumption family are flawed in some way. Wrong answers for these questions will reverse the logic, or not address the core, although sometimes you do see premise boosters/premise weakeners as correct answers, this is rare though, you just have to eliminate as many as possible on your first pass. There are additional things to look for in these such as a correlation supporting causation, causation in general, conditionality in general, and formal logic. For these questions, you must work towards identifying the gap, coming up with a potential answer, then move to the answers.

Inference - these questions require you to use the information provided to you in the stimulus to select an answer, which must follow from that information. Scope is your biggest obstacle in these, you have to possess a very narrow sense of scope, cut down the wrong answers, diagram if you must, and remember the information is in the stimulus, and the correct answer will always follow from it. I'll diagram conditional and formal logic, the rest I usually just work from my notations in the stimulus. I usually look for very un-absolute language in these, because words and phrases like "some may," "one cause may be," "(this thing) might," are so un-absolute that they can almost always be supported, if not the most strongly supported. Also know that there’s usually not a core in these, just a bunch of statements, usually containing conditional or formal logic, or causation, you need to develop a sense of what is important and what is not. The sad thing is that the only way to do this is to do an obnoxious number of inference family questions.

Structure - these questions require you to understand the abstract nature of the argument and pay attention to subtle shifts in terms, degree, division, etc. and select an answer, which either conforms to the information in the stimulus, or to describe it in an abstract fashion. I usually diagram matching questions; argument part questions are usually pretty straightforward.

Thanks this is awesome! I remember in another post you mentioned that you score in the 170-180 rage. I am curious what sections you focus on the most in LR? I know it is important to cover all topics but do you recommend zoning in on a few specific areas? Thanks!

[Daily_Double]

Thanks this is awesome! I remember in another post you mentioned that you score in the 170-180 rage. I am curious what sections you focus on the most in LR? I know it is important to cover all topics but do you recommend zoning in on a few specific areas? Thanks!

Yes,the Assumption family, though there are many others more qualified than I to opine upon this topic, so take my advice as just that, advice, and nothing more. Flaw, N/A, S/A, Strengthen, and Weaken questions specifically are a large part of the sections, since there's two sections, these question types specifically are about 1/4 or more, of the test. In addition, these question types are usually the ones which become difficult questions in the 17-21 or 22-26 range of questions. So by becoming great at these question types, you'll be able to move faster and more precisely through the sections.

[magickware]

Do you have some sort of limit where you can't focus on everything?

If you had to focus on one broad topic, then the assumption family is best. It's roughly 1/4 or 1/3 of the LR section. But you need to have a solid understanding in everything if you want to score above 170. Every question wrong is effectively 1 point off at 170 and beyond.

And the PS and Manhattan LSAT LR books do not contradict each other. They just have different emphasis. The PS book is more technique based and, to me at least, seems to have the assumption that you already have a fairly good understanding of the concepts.

The MLSAT LR book makes no such assumption and strives to teach you every concept tested in the LSAT. This is the way to go if you're not familiar with logical reasoning in general. It's much more thorough.

And that is an awesome breakdown Daily_Double.

[Suits99]

I don't have any restrictions on what I can focus on, I basically just wanted to know if one area is questioned on more.

[Nicolena.]

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=108425