This is what we call a method of reasoning question. The question then says,

of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba's strategy of argumentation?

So we are then sort of quickly take a scan at the answer choices. You see that every single

answer choice begins with a verb and that's because what we're trying to describe what

the argument is doing. Is the argument questioning a conclusion? Is it questioning a claim? Is it

attempting to refuse something? So this style of question we've seen before on flawed method

reasoning questions. Now nothing here tells us that this is a flaw. But for flawed method

reasoning questions, we also realize this is a level at which we're engaging. If this is the

argument, we're engaging at it from above, from a descriptive view. That's what we're doing.

So just like flawed method reasoning questions, this type of question, the answer choices that

are incorrect very, very likely will be the correct answer choice for a different type of

argument. Because that's all it is. These are the molds, the cookie cutters from which these

cookies are made. So if you can do these questions well, it's highly revealing of how the logical

reasoning questions are being made. Let's take a look at what Gamba has to say. I'm not even

opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition. So this guy M

is saying, look, this association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system. Because of that,

I am going to conclude that I, being M, is going to conclude that there's citywide opposition.

I don't know. Anyway, so let's see. I think Gamba is going to try to attack this right here. He's

going to say something. Just because the boys club think X, Y, Z doesn't mean that the girls club

also think X, Y, Z. Certainly you can't say the whole city, the whole population of boys and girls

think X, Y, Z. So I get the feeling that's how you're going to... I mean, at least if you're

presented with an argument like this, that seems like the very vulnerable part of the argument to

attack. Is the Southwest Hopeful Neighborhood Association representative of the city? Who

knows? The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of

the 350 members voted. Oh, okay. So see, now this is surprising because now I'm beginning to get

skeptical because of what Gamba is telling me. I'm beginning to get skeptical that the association

themselves even opposes the water system or overwhelmingly opposes water system. Because

look, the vast majority of people didn't even vote. 25 people voted and 10 in favor. So almost half of

them were in favor. Furthermore, the 15 that opposed represent far less than 1% of Hopeville's

population. Exactly. So this is not overwhelmingly. Now I'm highly skeptical that Southwest Hopeville

Neighborhood Association is overly opposed, overwhelmingly opposed to the system. So I

disbelieve M's premise. So now I certainly have no reason to believe M's conclusion.

This almost never happens, by the way. On LSAT, if you are encountered with an argument, you're

being asked to weaken the argument. Attacking the premise is something that the LSAT never asks you

to do, but you have to recognize it when it's happening, when the LSAT is doing it. So G,

Gamba is attacking M's argument precisely saying, oh, your premise, really? This association

overwhelmingly opposes the new system? I don't think so. How can you call this an overwhelming

opposition? So one should not assume that Sophie Views represents the views of the majority of the

Hopeville's residents. So then of course, of the 350 members of the association, that's less than

1% of the population of the city, or the ville, I suppose. So then if the sample doesn't even

convincingly display opposition, then certainly you can't say the population convincingly displays

opposition. So wrong on so many levels, attacking the premise and attacks whether the premise

supports inclusion. So you see, really, G is making a very good argument. He's saying,

this part right here, furthermore, he's saying, I've already dismantled your argument. But even

if the association, even if I can concede to you your premise, even though I just wrecked it,

but even if I concede to you your premise, the support still doesn't exist. Even if it's true

that the association does overwhelmingly oppose the system, that's no evidence that the city

opposes it because it's just not enough of the population is too small. 15, I guess we can

figure this out. If 15 is, let's say 1%, then I suppose it's 15,000, or 1,500. Yeah, 10%, 1%.

Yeah, 1,500 would be the total number of people. All right, anyway, that was sort of a useless

exercise. Okay, so let's now figure out which one of the following answers describes how this

argument is working. So with method of reasoning, you have to be very careful to bring this abstract

language down to the level of the argument. Otherwise, you get lost. Otherwise, you're

not really understanding what you're reading. A says questioning a conclusion, right? It is

this conclusion, M's conclusion. I should use a different color for this. It questions this

conclusion based on the results of a vote on the grounds that, so this so far is good, on the

grounds that people with certain views are more likely to vote. No, wrong. It could have been

right. There are plenty of stimuli on the LSAT where this describes perfectly what the stimulus

is doing. I question your conclusion drawn from a vote because your voter base was biased. For

example, let's say we vote, do we make the tax laws more complicated or less complicated? And

then as a vote turns out, people decide the tax law should be more complicated. But if we look

into the data, we find out that the majority of people who voted were attorneys, or the people

you asked were attorneys. And yeah, attorneys are, let's say, tax attorney. Then they have

an incentive to make tax law more complicated, so they have jobs. So see, that's where on the

grounds of people with certain views, attorneys are more likely to vote. Anyway, maybe not the

best example, but it's excellent, excellent practice. In fact, I think it's essential,

necessary practice to take wrong answer choices from method of reasoning questions like this one

and flaw method of reasoning questions and make up arguments that are right for that answer choice.

That's the only way you're going to become familiar and best buddies with these wrong

answer choices because you've got to be able to eliminate them quick. You have to be familiar

overwhelmingly opposed claim. It has to be that one. He's questioning this claim.

By arguing that statistical data can be manipulated, no, wrong. You see, at this point,

you just cross out and move on. Keith is not saying you're manipulating data to support whatever

view an interpreter wants to support. He's saying, just look at the data. You're simply

misrepresenting the data. No one's manipulating the data. Here's an example of manipulating data,

and this is something that law schools do, actually. So let's say this is a middle-of-the-pack

law school, and of their graduates, half of them don't find jobs at all, so their salary is zero.

And then, say, 10% of them find jobs, or let's say 20% of them find jobs that pay $200,000 a year.

And then, if they report, see, if they, what they show, this is, you know, like we said,

80% is here, and 20% is here. Now, if they report the average, if they report the average

income in their employment statistics, that would be highly misleading. Actually, I don't really,

my math is, my math is not good enough to figure out what the average is, but the average will be

something, let's just pretend average is, like, say, 50K. My OCD got the best of me. I had to

figure it out. So the average is 40K. If this were the case, average would be 40K, so anyway.

All right, so if they report, if this law school reports average income 40K, you might think it's

a good idea to go to this law school, but, but you see, that's manipulating data, because nobody

makes 40K. They shouldn't be reporting the average. They can, they can report the average they want,

right, you see, because if you enter this law school, you're either making $0 or you're making

$200,000. So this, this average, like, why do you even bother reporting? So that's an example of

manipulating data. So, you know, see, this just doesn't happen here. So he says,

the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

This is really good. This is, this, this answer choice describes every single weakening question

the LSAT ever asks. That's exactly what we're doing. We're saying the truth of the premise

doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion. But see, the problem is that it, he, that's only,

like, that only describes, like, a little bit of the argument. His main attack is precisely saying

that this, this premise is not true, or there is no overwhelming opposition from the neighborhood

association to the new water system. So that's, that's what makes C incorrect. D says, it

to confirm, but that's not right. This, we're not criticizing this, you know, you're, like,

here's what D would sound like. Oh, you know, I'm pretending to be G now, Gamba. I would say,

um, your evidence is in principle, this, this, like, surveyors vote that you speak of. No one's,

you know, you don't have any record of it. I cannot, uh, take a look at the, uh, video recording

of it, or just, there's no way in principle for me to actually confirm this. But no, that's not

true. He, he, like, lays out the, the, the details right here, the evidence right here. E says,

conclusion. That's what we're trying to do. By claiming that the statistical sample on which

the conclusion is based, that's the premise here about the association overwhelmingly opposing

a system, right? You see what I mean? By taking this abstract language, pushing it into your

stimulus, into your argument to make sense of it, the statistical sample on which it's based

is too small to be dependable. Exactly. It's too small. Only 25 of 35 voted. It's too small. You,

you can't say that this is, this is overwhelming representation. That's what makes E the correct

answer choice.