Tough LR Assumption/Inference Questions Forum

[DaRascal]

I'm talking about the ones you typically see 2-3 times in a given administration where there are multiple conditionals in the stimulus. They're called "advanced conditional logic" questions in the MLSAT 10 Real LSATs Grouped by Question Type book.

My question is what is the best approach for these? They've always given me trouble and it's the only type of LR question that I don't feel completely comfortable with even when I get it right and I'm sure a lot of other people feel that way!

Is the best approach simply to separate the premise(s) from the conclusion in your head (for assumption types) and just try to balance all the information and ascertain what needs to be true (for inference types) or is the best approach to physically diagram them (which I'm not comfortable with at all because it's time consuming for me)?

Really could use the help! Thanks!

[old-black-joe]

It's really not worth covering this at this point in time. You just have to be able to dissect complex conditional language and formulate it into diagramable concepts that can be easily translated to the answer choices. If you can't do this now, no point in trying to learn it for tomorrow. When you get to them, for tomorrow, just dig as much as you can into what is and isn't true. Take the sentences one-by-one and see what you can do.

[DaRascal]

It's really not worth covering this at this point in time.

Would you suggest just circling them and coming back to them at the end of the section? See, I can dissect the conditional language it just takes me more time than any other question type (even matching questions). I mean sometimes I'll take two and a half minutes on these types of questions. Should I be at the point where they're as easy to diagram as conditional statements on a game?

[DaRascal]

Hey, wait a second I actually think I've got this!!


You just need to diagram the premise(s), create a conditional chain with the premises (excluding premises irrelevant to the C if there are any), link it to the conclusion and then see if the sufficient assumption in that chain (or its contrapositive) matches up with an answer choice. I forget the methodology for solving the other types of this question type, but maybe it's not as daunting as I thought it was. I think the abstract language makes it challenging in such a way that you overthink answer choices when it might be better after all just to draw a diagram and find one that matches up.


Am I on the right track or am I screwed?

[CardozoLaw09]

Hey, wait a second I actually think I've got this!!


You just need to diagram the premise(s), create a conditional chain with the premises (excluding premises irrelevant to the C if there are any), link it to the conclusion and then see if the sufficient assumption in that chain (or its contrapositive) matches up with an answer choice. I forget the methodology for solving the other types of this question type, but maybe it's not as daunting as I thought it was. I think the abstract language makes it challenging in such a way that you overthink answer choices when it might be better after all just to draw a diagram and find one that matches up.


Am I on the right track or am I screwed?

Nah, that's pretty much how it's done. The conditional chain will only be created after you include the sufficient assumption from one of the answer choices. Your aim should be matching up the necessary conditions of the premises to that of the conclusion and then deriving a chain from that.

For example - and this is a really simple one to try and illustrate the concept

Premise 1: A --> B

Conclusion: C --> ~A

Use the contrapositive of premise 1 to get:

~B --> ~A [this matches up the necessary condition of the premise with that of the conclusion]
C --> ~A

And your sufficient assumption in the answer choice will either be in the form of (1) C-->~B or (2) B --> ~C

Using (1), we get a chain such that, C --> ~B --> ~A or using (2) we get, A --> B --> ~C

[DaRascal]

Ok awesome. I'll try to find the sufficient assumption w/out diagramming first and will diagram as a last resort.

Btw, unrelated question, but should I not touch anything LSAT related for the rest of the day (taking the June test tomorrow)? I'm wondering if I'm starting to get a little burnt out considering my focus isn't really sharp right now...