Necessary Assumption and Method of Reasoning

Fluccci3

Hi everyone, I've been having troubles tackling a few LR questions and I'm noticing that I tend to consistently get them wrong (necessary assumption and method of reasoning). Do any of you have unique tips on how you approach these two question types? I've reviewed CC a couple of times now for both question types!

BinghamtonDave

My recommendation would be to do some problem sets from the older exams located in the CC. Take time breaking down the argument, labeling premise(s), conclusion, sub conclusions.

For necessary assumption questions keep a close eye on any equivocation of terms between the premise and the conclusion. This is often called the “bridging” form of a necessary assumption. The other form would be the blocking or shielding form: where we prevent a certain circumstance from obtaining and therefore prevent the reasoning in the argument from falling apart. There is also a webinar on NAs on 7Sage.

For method of reasoning, for my money, method of reasoning arguments are like SA and formulaic MBTs: they can be done over and over again. Get a whole stack of them and dig in. What does the argument do? Does it employ an analogy? Does it attack the premises of another argument? Does it attack a correlation/causation framework? There is also another webinar on 7Sage dedicated to this.

Meaningful practice, not just repetition, is what sharpens our skills here.

David

Fluccci3

Thanks so much for your help, I will follow your advice! I have yet to check webinars out

BinghamtonDave

No problem. The webinars are fantastic. 7Sage basically takes elite test takers and gives them freedom to go into great detail about highly specific aspects of the exam. The webinars are a gold mine of knowledge.

keets993

Method of Reasoning is something I've struggled with too and what I've found helpful is when I'm doing questions, no matter what type it is, I first describe what the method of reasoning the author employs before tackling the actual question. So for example, suppose we're doing a weakening question, I would describe the strucutre: the author is attempting to come up with a hypothesis for a phenonemon that overlooks that one cause of the phenomenon is not the only cause. I've found that not only does this help me with Method of Reasoning questions but it also deepens my understanding of each question and allows me to see patterns in terms of the structure that LR questions employ. It also allows me to see how the common types of flaws are there in other questions as well.

As for NA, I think David tackled it perfectly.

olepueblo

Make sure you dissect the passages fully and understand how the parts relate to one another. Do two premises indipendently support the conclusion or is there a sub conclusion that supports the conclusion. So imprortant that all the elements are clearly identified. To identify the elements as well as understand their relationships, I like to ask myself “is x because of y or is y because of x?” This helps me understand the support relationships.

The “bridging” concept seems like the best way to conceptualize na questions.