Help with this particular type of logical reasoning question Forum

[deebanger]

Hey guys!, does anybody have any tips to solve this particular kind of question-- "Which of the following principles if valid, helps most justify..." I really appreciate it.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

You want to treat these essentially as a Strengthen question. The language is likely to be a bit more blanket/abstract than a typical strengthener. Often the answers will follow the format of Sufficient Assumptions, and be patterned as "If [premise], then [conclusion]" type conditionals, but they don't have to.

So, you're going to identify your conclusion, identify your premise, consider whatever disconnects appear between those, and look for the answer that most strengthens the connection.

[papercut]

Hey guys!, does anybody have any tips to solve this particular kind of question-- "Which of the following principles if valid, helps most justify..." I really appreciate it.

It's a strengthen question. Usually you get to user formal logic/diagram.

A lot of the times it'll work like a Sufficient Assumption question because they usually involve formal logic. The stimulus will say something like:

Jerry always finds something to nitpick about his dates. So, Jerry is afraid of commitment.

Correct answer: If you're always finding something to nitpick about your dates, then you're afraid of commitment.

[deebanger]

thanks a lot guys!, I was struggling with these q's, and now I will apply what you guys have said.

[Jeffort]

A really common type of trap answer that suckers lots of people every time is when it's a conditional statement that is the incorrect/mistaken reversal of what does work/what the CR gives you. To help make this type of trap answer more appealing under test day timed conditions and to make the question a little harder they sometimes phrase the CR in a way so that the contrapositive of the statement is what links with the evidence and bridges it to the conclusion in order to disguise the CR since you have to think beyond surface level/the explicit text to see how it logically works and recognize it as being correct even though it sounds backwards on first read.

[deebanger]

A really common type of trap answer that suckers lots of people every time is when it's a conditional statement that is the incorrect/mistaken reversal of what does work/what the CR gives you. To help make this type of trap answer more appealing under test day timed conditions and to make the question a little harder they sometimes phrase the CR in a way so that the contrapositive of the statement is what links with the evidence and bridges it to the conclusion in order to disguise the CR since you have to think beyond surface level/the explicit text to see how it logically works and recognize it as being correct even though it sounds backwards on first read.

Hey Jeffort, Im really sorry, I a kinda confused by what you are saying, can u show me an example from some test that this happens, so that I can understand it better. Thanks!

[Jeffort]

A really common type of trap answer that suckers lots of people every time is when it's a conditional statement that is the incorrect/mistaken reversal of what does work/what the CR gives you. To help make this type of trap answer more appealing under test day timed conditions and to make the question a little harder they sometimes phrase the CR in a way so that the contrapositive of the statement is what links with the evidence and bridges it to the conclusion in order to disguise the CR since you have to think beyond surface level/the explicit text to see how it logically works and recognize it as being correct even though it sounds backwards on first read.

Hey Jeffort, Im really sorry, I a kinda confused by what you are saying, can u show me an example from some test that this happens, so that I can understand it better. Thanks!

I'm talking about If..then conditional statements (A -->B) and the flawed usage of treating a necessary condition as if it is sufficient. Given the premise All As are Bs (A --> B), mistaken/incorrect reversal/mistaking necessary condition for a sufficient condition is incorrectly using that premise to argue that if B is true, then A must be true (B-->A), thus incorrectly reversing the logical relationship the premise establishes. Is that what is confusing you? It's part of the basics about conditional reasoning/sufficient and necessary conditions/conditional reasoning in terms of flawed vs valid reasoning with conditional premises.

An example of this question type with an incorrect reversal trap answer:
PT62 Section 4 Q#20 (about substance T in factories).

A much harder one where you have to use the contrapositive of the conditional statement stated in the CR to see how it works to justify the conclusion that also has conditional trap answers with important elements reversed:
PT70 S1 Q23

The logic of that question and explanation of how the CR for it logically works is discussed in this thread:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=229003

LR Principle questions heavily revolve around/include conditional reasoning since most of the principles in principle questions are conditional statements/conditional relationships. Almost all LR principle question types are designed in part to test peoples understanding and reasoning skills with conditional reasoning/sufficient and necessary conditional relationships.

Let me know if this helps clear things up or not.