Top Law Schools

I think this may be my problem. I am not really thinking about the distinction here. I am assuming there a difference here in approaching these questions.

There is different types of principle questions.

There are...

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

"The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"


I am missing way too many principle questions. I usually miss less than 2 or 3 LR questions per section, and they are almost always principle questions.

Is there truly a distinction with principle question types or am I reading too much into that?

secretad wrote: Is there truly a distinction with principle question types or am I reading too much into that?

Those two question stems are almost polar opposites. To conform to something is to let it control you, not to change it. To justify something is to control it, make it stronger.

A Principle question that asks you to "justify" something is very close to a Strengthen question. A Principle question that asks something about "conforming" is very close to an Inference question. As you might imagine, these are extremely different. Among the differences:

Principle-Justify has a conclusion. The conclusion is what you're trying to justify. The right answer will, in general, say that the evidence given is good enough reason to draw the conclusion.

Principle-Conform usually has no conclusion (though sometimes it does). You're either trying to identify a principle at work in the argument (Principle-ID) or apply the given principle to situations in the answer choices (Principle-Apply). Principle-ID requires making a generalization, of which the situation presented is one specific example. Principle-Apply requires taking a conditional statement and finding a situation that fits the conditional as directly and literally as possible.

So I think of there being essentially three types of Principle questions, and they are pretty different from each other.