Top Law Schools

Has anyone looked at Kaplan's new (for them) assumption family breakdown/method in the 2013 premiere book? I'm wondering what people think of the way they are focusing on argument type as primary and question type as secondary (as well as their binary divide for argument types). I personally like it, but it's nice to hear from the experts.

.

.

KDLMaj wrote:Has anyone looked at Kaplan's new (for them) assumption family breakdown/method in the 2013 premiere book? I'm wondering what people think of the way they are focusing on argument type as primary and question type as secondary (as well as their binary divide for argument types). I personally like it, but it's nice to hear from the experts.

Look, I have no idea of what or how Kaplan is dividing their assumption questions, but from what you say, it seems to be broken down into argument structure type primarily (such as, some scientists, some architects, some [group] say, but that's incorrect) and then moving on to see if that argument falls into a necessary assumption or sufficient assumption. If that's the case, it may be a very good idea. If it isn't the case, then sorry, I can't help you.

Hotguy wrote:

KDLMaj wrote:Has anyone looked at Kaplan's new (for them) assumption family breakdown/method in the 2013 premiere book? I'm wondering what people think of the way they are focusing on argument type as primary and question type as secondary (as well as their binary divide for argument types). I personally like it, but it's nice to hear from the experts.

Look, I have no idea of what or how Kaplan is dividing their assumption questions, but from what you say, it seems to be broken down into argument structure type primarily (such as, some scientists, some architects, some [group] say, but that's incorrect) and then moving on to see if that argument falls into a necessary assumption or sufficient assumption. If that's the case, it may be a very good idea. If it isn't the case, then sorry, I can't help you.

The breakdown isn't by speaker. It's by flaw. Overlooked Possibilities and Scope Shifts as the primary umbrella concepts and then breaking down the variants of each. I found it super helpful. They actually separated out the arguments from question types. i.e. A causal argument always has the same assumption no matter what the question type is, but the question type affects the way the answer is written. It made me realize that necessary assumption questions, sufficient assumption questions, flaw, and strengthening and weakening were all basically the same thing with minor variations in the wording of the answer choices.

Just sharing what ended up working for me. I found it worth checking out. Their new reading comp was really interesting too with the focus on passage types (not the standard law, social science,etc). Though I still preferred power score for logic games.