Having a hard time anticipating assumptions

Laurazh3

I'm having a hard time brainstorming assumptions for SA, PSA, weaken and strengthen questions. Sometimes when I draw out the premises and conclusion and look for the missing assumption, I end up with something that's either not in the AC. It's been interfering with how well I can do on these questions. I've practiced quite a lot, but does anyone have any tips on how to be smart about working on this? Thanks!

TheDeterminedC

Hello, @Laurazh3. SA and PSA should be very specific in what you are looking for. Because these two deal with validity, they both 100% can be reliably anticipated. With SA, there is one AC that will state exactly what you should anticipate, as it's exactly what the argument needs to be valid. I suggest drilling SA by taking the english out of a question you don't understand and put it into easy terms like J.Y. does. i.e. A ---> B -----> C . If you have your valid logical reasoning forms down, you simply need to supply the missing link, which should be close to verbatim (or contrapotsitivily stated) in the AC. For PSA, just think premise --> conclusion. Make sure to match the strength and order of the relationship.

I can't say much about STR or W questions. I typically don't actively anticipate those. I just keep what premises are being used in support, how strong the conclusion is, and how they both relate, in my head with an open mind when I approach the questions. I included this because, for me at least, when I anticipated for these question stems, I shut down my critical thinking and focused on only that one anticipation I had in my head. If I didn't see it in the ACs then I was kinda SOL having to go back. But find out what works for you and run with it. I do have an exception and that is for causal arguments, the CC has a section about str/weak with causation. There are 4 ways each for both, memorize those.

It might actually help to fake that you're the person giving the argument or that you're in a ongoing conversation with the author too.

Sami

You are trying to anticipate answer choices which is not a good strategy. What you can do is notice the flaws and jumps the argument makes. For example you can notice that the argument goes from correlation to causation but be open to the many different ways the LSAT writers can present that in answer choices.

LSAT writers can write an answer in so many different ways that if you try to always anticipate you will miss out on a lot of the correct answer choices. Instead, read each answer choice on its own merit and see if that would do the operation required of you. Also, some LSAT stimulus have two flaws, so if you try to anticipate the answer choices for them you'll fail to see you missed something in the stimulus.