Top Law Schools

It seems like the more conditional chains you see in an argument, the harder the harder the argument is initially on the LSAT. Is that correct? (I say initially because practicing your diagramming will take care of those pesky conditional chains for the most part)

Do you mean "more conditional chains" as in simply more chains that can be linked together? As in A --> B would be easier than A --> B --> C --> D or something of the matter?

I think the challenge isn't the quantity or the length but being able to quickly and accurately determine the relationship that each of the chains have with each other. It's rare that you will get something clean cut like "All A's are B, All B's are C, All C's are D, etc." More likely you will have different degrees of relationships, like "A some B, B all C, C most D, E some C, which one of the following must be true..." or to something of that effect. In addition to recognizing different relationships of the formal logic (some, most, all, never, etc.) it is also very helpful to focus on contrapositives, for example: If A most B and B most C, which one of the following can be false (to which you might have some option that might say some C are A, which doesn't have to be true).

Did this touch on your question or am I rambling off (I'm trying to distract myself by spending time on the forums here so I don't overkill it with drills and tests)?

dontdoitkid wrote:Do you mean "more conditional chains" as in simply more chains that can be linked together? As in A --> B would be easier than A --> B --> C --> D or something of the matter?

I think the challenge isn't the quantity or the length but being able to quickly and accurately determine the relationship that each of the chains have with each other. It's rare that you will get something clean cut like "All A's are B, All B's are C, All C's are D, etc." More likely you will have different degrees of relationships, like "A some B, B all C, C most D, E some C, which one of the following must be true..." or to something of that effect. In addition to recognizing different relationships of the formal logic (some, most, all, never, etc.) it is also very helpful to focus on contrapositives, for example: If A most B and B most C, which one of the following can be false (to which you might have some option that might say some C are A, which doesn't have to be true).

Did this touch on your question or am I rambling off (I'm trying to distract myself by spending time on the forums here so I don't overkill it with drills and tests)?

No your information was helpful. I also get what you're saying, but I'm referring to conditional chains on assumption family questions, and it seems as though the more chains you have in those questions, the more difficult the questions can be for the untrained test taker. For example, If you were to have a question with 3 conditional chains, you're more likely to see it in 15 or above, than 14 or below.