Top Law Schools

Is it safe to say that almost all of the right answers in the logical reasoning section have to keep some part of the premise intact as a result of the fact that almost all premises are accepted as true? If the question is not clear, I'll be glad to clarify.

When analyzing LSAT LR arguments, you always accept all the stated premises as true. Your job is to analyze the arguments and figure out why the premises offered in support of the conclusion are not sufficient to guarantee that the conclusion is 100% true/valid. Your job on the LSAT is NOT to evaluate the truth of premises offered, but instead is to evaluate the reasoning of the argument and figure out why the evidence/reasoning presented doesn't logically establish/guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Your question is a little bit unclear, does this answer it?

Jeffort wrote:When analyzing LSAT LR arguments, you always accept all the stated premises as true. Your job is to analyze the arguments and figure out why the premises offered in support of the conclusion are not sufficient to guarantee that the conclusion is 100% true/valid. Your job on the LSAT is NOT to evaluate the truth of premises offered, but instead is to evaluate the reasoning of the argument and figure out why the evidence/reasoning presented doesn't logically establish/guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Your question is a little bit unclear, does this answer it?

I think (?) he was asking about the relation between the answer choices and the premises. For example, if I said "TLS is great. Therefore, TLS is awesome," I think the OP is asking if being "great" is an essential component of the correct answer, i.e., it must say something related to "greatness"

WaltGrace83 wrote:

Jeffort wrote:When analyzing LSAT LR arguments, you always accept all the stated premises as true. Your job is to analyze the arguments and figure out why the premises offered in support of the conclusion are not sufficient to guarantee that the conclusion is 100% true/valid. Your job on the LSAT is NOT to evaluate the truth of premises offered, but instead is to evaluate the reasoning of the argument and figure out why the evidence/reasoning presented doesn't logically establish/guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Your question is a little bit unclear, does this answer it?

I think (?) he was asking about the relation between the answer choices and the premises. For example, if I said "TLS is great. Therefore, TLS is awesome," I think the OP is asking if being "great" is an essential component of the correct answer, i.e., it must say something related to "greatness"

EXACTLY WaltGrace 83

ltowns1 wrote:

WaltGrace83 wrote:

Jeffort wrote:When analyzing LSAT LR arguments, you always accept all the stated premises as true. Your job is to analyze the arguments and figure out why the premises offered in support of the conclusion are not sufficient to guarantee that the conclusion is 100% true/valid. Your job on the LSAT is NOT to evaluate the truth of premises offered, but instead is to evaluate the reasoning of the argument and figure out why the evidence/reasoning presented doesn't logically establish/guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Your question is a little bit unclear, does this answer it?

I think (?) he was asking about the relation between the answer choices and the premises. For example, if I said "TLS is great. Therefore, TLS is awesome," I think the OP is asking if being "great" is an essential component of the correct answer, i.e., it must say something related to "greatness"

EXACTLY WaltGrace 83

ok, the question is still pretty vague. The CR for assumption family question types will always relate to the unsupported/unwarranted/flawed assumption(s) of the argument that are in the core of the relationship between the support and the conclusion. Are you asking about whether or not the CR must explicitly mention/refer to something stated in the premises (has to include certain keywords or an explicit reference to a premise?) or just about relevance - meaning that the CR has to have a relationship to the/a supporting premise(s)? I'm not sure what you mean by "have to keep some part of the premise intact". What WaltGrace described is about relevance, which is a really big broad complex topic.

The criteria for what the CR must contain/how it must relate to the argument depends on the question type and on the type of flawed reasoning the argument contains, types of evidence used, background info if any that sets the context of the argument, etc.

Can you be more specific with your question, perhaps with specific LSAT LR questions that gave you trouble? It would be a lot easier to understand your specific question(s) more clearly and give good detailed feedback within the context of LR questions rather than just discussing things in the abstract looking for a general "it's always this way" rule. Just reference any LR question(s) that gave you trouble with this issue to give us a good context to address your concerns (PT# Section# & Q#, don't post the text of questions) and describe your question in more detail as it relates to a specific LR question.

I think his whole question is based on scope. Its very ironic that I'm replying to this thread because LR is my worst section by far. But lately I've been drilling my head with it. I think what he's asking is if the conclusion or premises says a certain word(ie. great, beautiful, sunny) that the correct answer will use this exact same terminology. Like if the premises says "it is sunny outside" the answer wont have anything to do with the day being beautiful, or not cloudy. It will stay within the "scope" of the premises.

Does that make sense? lol another way to look at it is this... if you are thinking of the OPPOSITE of a certain word in the LSAT don't think too hard. For example, the opposite of "wet" is not "dry" in lsat terms.... the opposite of wet is "not wet." The opposite of up is not down. The opposite of up is "not up" because it could be left right etc...

So, the answer will not add foreign words. It will stay within the scope. This is my problem. I think about it too hard. I've had people tell me "stupid people sometimes perform better on the LSAT" and there is a lot of truth to that because thinking too much about it sometimes kills you. Keep it simple.

Does that answer the question?

Jeffort wrote:

ltowns1 wrote:

WaltGrace83 wrote:

Jeffort wrote:When analyzing LSAT LR arguments, you always accept all the stated premises as true. Your job is to analyze the arguments and figure out why the premises offered in support of the conclusion are not sufficient to guarantee that the conclusion is 100% true/valid. Your job on the LSAT is NOT to evaluate the truth of premises offered, but instead is to evaluate the reasoning of the argument and figure out why the evidence/reasoning presented doesn't logically establish/guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Your question is a little bit unclear, does this answer it?

I think (?) he was asking about the relation between the answer choices and the premises. For example, if I said "TLS is great. Therefore, TLS is awesome," I think the OP is asking if being "great" is an essential component of the correct answer, i.e., it must say something related to "greatness"

EXACTLY WaltGrace 83

ok, the question is still pretty vague. The CR for assumption family question types will always relate to the unsupported/unwarranted/flawed assumption(s) of the argument that are in the core of the relationship between the support and the conclusion. Are you asking about whether or not the CR must explicitly mention/refer to something stated in the premises (has to include certain keywords or an explicit reference to a premise?) or just about relevance - meaning that the CR has to have a relationship to the/a supporting premise(s)? I'm not sure what you mean by "have to keep some part of the premise intact". What WaltGrace described is about relevance, which is a really big broad complex topic.

The criteria for what the CR must contain/how it must relate to the argument depends on the question type and on the type of flawed reasoning the argument contains, types of evidence used, background info if any that sets the context of the argument, etc.

Can you be more specific with your question, perhaps with specific LSAT LR questions that gave you trouble? It would be a lot easier to understand your specific question(s) more clearly and give good detailed feedback within the context of LR questions rather than just discussing things in the abstract looking for a general "it's always this way" rule. Just reference any LR question(s) that gave you trouble with this issue to give us a good context to address your concerns (PT# Section# & Q#, don't post the text of questions) and describe your question in more detail as it relates to a specific LR question.

I think they answered my question...thanks anyway.

choward014 wrote:I think his whole question is based on scope. Its very ironic that I'm replying to this thread because LR is my worst section by far. But lately I've been drilling my head with it. I think what he's asking is if the conclusion or premises says a certain word(ie. great, beautiful, sunny) that the correct answer will use this exact same terminology. Like if the premises says "it is sunny outside" the answer wont have anything to do with the day being beautiful, or not cloudy. It will stay within the "scope" of the premises.

Does that make sense? lol another way to look at it is this... if you are thinking of the OPPOSITE of a certain word in the LSAT don't think too hard. For example, the opposite of "wet" is not "dry" in lsat terms.... the opposite of wet is "not wet." The opposite of up is not down. The opposite of up is "not up" because it could be left right etc...

So, the answer will not add foreign words. It will stay within the scope. This is my problem. I think about it too hard. I've had people tell me "stupid people sometimes perform better on the LSAT" and there is a lot of truth to that because thinking too much about it sometimes kills you. Keep it simple.

Does that answer the question?

Yes, this makes sense, and you answered my question.