Distinguishing MBT, SA, and NA

CurlyQQQ

Ok so I feel as though I am interchanging methods of finding the answer for each of these questions. They're so similar to me and its starting to give me a headache. Can someone lay out in layman's terms how to approach these question types? These are the types I'm having trouble with and MBT are supposed to be freebies. Also is there a chart somewhere that outlines how often each question type appears on the LSAT?

LSATcantwin

Hey so I'm going to answer the easy question first - if you go to the analytics section of 7Sage, and click on "trends" look for the section that shows the circles for question types you miss it will say how many are expected per test when you mouse over the circles.

As for your three types of questions it breaks down into;

SA - There is a gap in the argument somewhere. Somehow the arguments goes from A -> C without ever talking about B. Our job is to figure out where this gap is and the AC will completely fill this gap. Picture it like this:

• (P1) All dogs go to heaven when they die

• (P2) if you are in heaven then you are happy

• (C) Therefore all Dogs constantly wag their tales in heaven.

soooooo we are missing something here... we know NOTHING about wagging their tails....so our answer will address that.

• (AC) When a dog is happy, it will constantly wag its tail.

That's what a SA will look like, and what we are doing. We are trying to make the argument VALID.

NA - NA is insidious, and one of the harder question types to master. NA is asking us to find a "gap" in the reasoning. It's asking us to fill in a hole that the argument is making, or to shield it from an attack. They can be looked at as BOTH strengthening, and weakening questions at the same time. What we are actually doing is just showing that the person making the argument left out some information, that when included, makes the argument much better.

As for MBT it is simply an answer choice, that based on the argument, CANNOT be false. We are looking for an answer that is supported by the premises given.

• (P1) When Bob goes to the store he always buys milk and cookies.
• (P2) Bob always buys oreo's as his cookies if they are in stock.
• (P3) Bob went to the store today and oreo's were in stock

So what must be true?

• (AC) Bob bought milk and Oreo's when he went to the store.

We know this because of the information provided in the argument above.

Does this help?

(I'll go into NA in a separate post in a bit, busy at work right now!!)

goingfor99th

MBT:
In the stimulus, you will be given premises. In the answer choices you will look for a conclusion, a statement which, according to the premises, MUST be true. It is not satisfactory that an answer choice COULD be true.

Later on, you will need to further distinguish this question type from Most Strongly Supported.

SA:
In the stimulus, you are given (these are generic, but you get the point):
Premise: A -> B
and
Conclusion: A -> C
and then you find the missing premise in the answer choices:
Premise: B -> C

So you are trying to make a perfect argument, in essence:
A -> B
B -> C [this is the one you need to find]
Therefore: A -> C

The premise you need to find will have one term common to a premise in the stimulus, and another term common to the conclusion in the stimulus.

NA:
In the answer choices, you must find the one which must be true in order for the argument in the stimulus to work. There are two types of answer choices: shields and bridges. A shield eliminates an argument-breaking possibility from occurring while a bridge will make it so that the argument given in the stimulus is possible in the first place.

NovLSAT2019

To add to the previous posts, SA, MBT, MBF are all similar in a sense that they deal with validity. MBT and MBF must yield a valid conclusion from the premises given in the stimulus. You are usually trying to push out the answer FROM the stimulus INTO the answer choices. In SA, you are given premise and conclusion and you must make the argument valid by inserting a conditional from the answer choice. For example, you are given premise (A) and a conclusion (B) in the stimulus. Your job is to find the missing link (A -> B ) in the answer choices in order to make (B) valid. So, for the SA questions, you need to push one of the answer choices INTO the stimulus. To elaborate even further, you can take this example for instance:

All Jedi use the force, therefore, Luke Skywalker is a force user.

What is the premise? What is the conclusion? What is missing in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn?

Answer would be something like:

Luke Skywalker is a Jedi.

CurlyQQQ

@LSATcantwin Thank you so much! Also I'm still in CC so the analytics page will help in the future but not presently. I was wondering if there was data showing how often NA vs MP etc. questions appear.

CurlyQQQ

@BrianSeo With respect to MBT and MBF question types, what do you mean by you are trying to push out the answer from the stimulus? I remember JY using those words verbatim and they were a bit ambiguous to me.

CurlyQQQ

@goingfor99th Thank you so much! The bridging/shielding explanation is extremely helpful.

CurlyQQQ

Also does anyone else see the link between MBT and NA questions?

LSATcantwin

@CurlyQQQ said:
@LSATcantwin Thank you so much! Also I'm still in CC so the analytics page will help in the future but not presently. I was wondering if there was data showing how often NA vs MP etc. questions appear.

How many of each type are typically on the test:

(I would round up)

2.6 - Weak
6.1 - NA
1.7 - MBT
3.3 - SA
0.5 - Except
2.1 - Parallel
2.2 - Parallel Flaw
4.8 - MSS
4.0 - PSA
2.2 - Arg Part
1.5 - Method of Reas.
1.0 - Principle
4.4 - RRE
4.5 - Strength
2.5 - Disagree
2.0 - MC
1.0 - MBF
0.8 - Eval
0.2 - Agree
4.0 - Misc.

I think I got all of them...this is from like all the PT's I took. So the data should be fairly solid

NovLSAT2019

@CurlyQQQ said:
@BrianSeo With respect to MBT and MBF question types, what do you mean by you are trying to push out the answer from the stimulus? I remember JY using those words verbatim and they were a bit ambiguous to me.

MBT and MBF require you to come up with a conclusion based on the stimulus.
For the visual representation, it would look something like:

[Stim]
(Premise 1)
(Premise 2)
(Premise 3)
etc.

[AC]
(A) Conclusion A
(B) Conclusion B
(C) Conclusion C
(D) Conclusion D
(E) Conclusion E

Your task is to use the Premises 1 - X (in the stim) to come up with a valid conclusion that matches one of the answer choices. So, the direction of the question goes from top(stim) to bottom(ACs). You are pushing out the conclusion(AC) from the given premises above(stim).

Can the answer choice be perfectly supported by the stimulus? Is the answer choice assuming anything not stated in the stimulus? Is the answer choice contradicting any part of the stimulus? Does the answer choice fully connect with all parts of the stimulus?

The answer choice should "click" with the premises given in the stimulus. It's like a key that makes the machine run (if that makes any sense). You should try to see if the answer choices perfectly adhere to the premises from the stimulus.

Disregard this next section if it confuses you but it helped me understand MBT and MBF much better.

Another way to think about it is that, since the question stipulates that the answer choice MBT or MBF, you can flip the question around and eliminate the wrong answer choices.

If the question stem asks for a "Must Be True", you'll realize that the incorrect answer choices are at least "Could Be False" answer choices.

MBT must be valid in relationship to the given stimulus.
So, if a statement "Could Be False", it cannot be valid.
Therefore, it cannot be a "Must Be True".

Likewise, if a question stem asks for a "Must Be False" answer choice, you will realize that the wrong answer choices are wrong because, at the least, they "Could be True".

Same thing here as above:

MBF must be valid in relationship to the given stimulus.
So, if a statement "Could Be True", it cannot be valid.
Therefore, it cannot be a "Must Be False"

"Could Be True" and "Could Be False" are very similar because they can be interchangeable

If a statement "Could Be True", that means it "Could (also) Be False"

Even though this is from LG section, I found this drill incredibly helpful for MBT and MBF:
https://7sage.com/lesson/how-to-quickly-react-to-logic-games-question-stems-flashcards/

CurlyQQQ

@LSATcantwin Thanks for this! you're a gem!

CurlyQQQ

@BrianSeo This makes so much sense, I completely understand why there isn't an argument within MBT MBF questions now. Initially I had no idea the conclusion was what we were supposed to find in the answer choices.