LSAT Study Guide -- Primer

blah170blah

Hey guys! I made a study guide on Quizlet with LR question types (like Mike suggested) that I wanted to share/ get feedback on (particularly with respect to #18, types of arguments). It's purposefully not as dense as it could be because it's what I intend to use to prime myself before taking a PT and the real LSAT.

1. Agree
Step 1: Read the stimulus
Step 2: Underline conclusion
Step 3: Ask yourself the following questions
-- (1) Do they arrive at the same conclusion? POA (point of agreement): conclusion
-- (2) Do they use the same premise to arrive at different conclusions? POA: premise
-- (3) Do they use different premises to arrive at different conclusions? POA: subject matter

2. Disagree
Step 1: Read the stimulus
Step 2: Underline conclusion
Step 3: Ask yourself the following questions
-- (1) Do they use the same premise to arrive at different conclusions? POD (point of disagreement): conclusion
-- (3) Do they use different premises to arrive at different conclusions? POD: premise

Note: It is really important to understand what they are talking about. Think back to the ESP disagree example -- you would have gotten this question right if you thought about the fact that what they're talking about is the extent of public opinion on the existence of ESP.

3. Explain

4. Flaw
Step 1: Underline conclusion
Step 2: Find premise
Step 3a: Use typically fallacious terminology to properly identify the flaw (e.g., correlation =/= causation)
Step 3b: If you cannot draw upon existing knowledge of term bank, write down what exactly the argument doesn't take into account
Step 4: POE (process of elimination)
- Wrong flaw (not in the argument)
- Mixing of flaw (gets the right elements of the flaw but in the wrong order)
- FIC (factually incorrect)
- OS (out of scope) (specifically when they talk about information that isn't present in the argument -- this can feel odd when you're in the test because you won't know how to classify this answer choice since it almost seems like no parts relate to the main argument)

Note: It's really important when you're eliminating answer choices to really understand what the answer choice is doing. There will be some instances where you get two answer choices that relate to S/N confusion but will reverse the wrong one (so it will say confuses the sufficient for the necessary). You need to be extremely careful and if necessary, come back to these to give you the time you need.

5. Logically Completes the Argument
Step 1: Read the stimulus
Step 2: Underline conclusion (if you can)
Step 3: Identify what part is missing (typically the conclusion but could be a supporting premise)
Step 4: POE (process of elimination)
- Eliminate AC's that aren't the correct AP (argument part)
- Eliminate AC's that aren't MBT

6. MBT
Step 1: Underline conclusion
Step 2: Link up premises
Step 3: Chain them up if you can
** pay very close attention to a solitary conditional statement
Step 4: Go to answer choices and POE
- Mixes up terms (very common)
- FIC (factually incorrect)
- MS (modal shift)
- DS (degree shift)
- OS (out of scope)

8. MSS
Step 1: Read the stimulus
Step 2: Link up concepts (if you can)
Step 3: Go to answer choices and POE
- Mixes up terms (very common)
- FIC
- MS
- DS
- OS

Note: Be extremely wary of very strong answer choices but do not eliminate because they are strong.

9. Necessary Assumption
Step 1: Underline conclusion
Step 2: Identify premises
Step 3: Diagram into P -- C format
Step 4a: What's missing? Term shift? Do you need to eliminate alt. causes?
Step 4b: If nothing's missing, then the necessary assumption will need to actually link P -- C (ex: P actually has an effect on C)
Step 5: Find the correct answer choice and use POE (the wrong answer choices will typically focus on the wrong part of the argument so knowing what terms or links you need to focus on is crucial to not getting messed up)
Step 6: Confirm the correct answer choice using the negation test

10. Parallel
When reading the stimulus, look out for and write down:
1) Underline conclusion
2) Argument structure in stock variables (A --> B, B --> C // C)
3) Pay attention to the degree
4) Pay attention to the modality

When going through the answer choices, the fastest way to eliminate them is to eliminate based off of degree, modality, and then mapping out the argument structure. Even if you don't really understand the argument, look out for these three things: argument structure, degree, and modality.

11. Parallel Flaw
When reading the stimulus, write down the flaw you are looking for (luckily, these can be easily categorized or identified).

When going through the answer choices, find the answer choice that matches. If stuck between 2, compare the argument structure, degree, and modality.

12. Principle
Step 1: Underline the conclusion
Step 2: Identify the main premise
Step 3: Put into argument core (P -- C)
Step 4: POE

Note: Principle questions can be like Sufficient Assumption questions where the AC tightly fills the gap between P and C OR they can be like Strengthen questions where the AC helps fill the gap between the 2 but doesn't necessary fill it.

13. Reading Comprehension
-- As you're reading, answer the following questions:
1) What is the MP?
2) What is the AA?
3) What is the structure?
4) What are the main examples?

-- When you're answering questions, pre-phrase the correct AC before looking at the correct answers. Find the AC that matches the correct answer. It is even more important in RC to read every single answer choice carefully because 1 word can make or break an AC.

-- Typically, answer choices will be wrong because:
- MS
- DS
- OS
- FIC

-- If you don't know how to answer a question or are really struggling with a passage, eliminate as best you can (do not OVER eliminate) and then move on. Do not get sucked into spending 3+ minutes on answering a question right.

14. Resolve
(1) Are the 2 groups treated the same?
-- Correct AC: needs to show how the 2 groups are different

(2) Are the 2 groups treated differently?
-- Correct AC: needs to show how the 2 groups are similar

15. Role / Argument Part
Step 1: Read the stimulus
Step 2: Identify the argument part

Background -- sets up context for the stimulus
Premise -- supports something (note, even if the premise supports the IC, it is still the premise)
Intermediate Conclusion -- both is supported by something and supports something
Conclusion -- is supported by the argument and supports nothing else in the argument

16. Strengthen
Step 1: Identify conclusion
Step 2: Diagram argument core
Step 3a: If causal, strengthen the argument by showing SC --> SE (same cause, same effect), NC --> NE (no cause, no effect), lack of reverse causation, and lack of alt. causes)
Step 3b: If not casual, strengthen the argument by linking terms
Step 3c: If the argument draws on evidence from 2 groups, then show that the 2 groups are similar (if the argument treats them as such) or as different (again, if the argument treats them as such)
Step 4: POE
- FIC
- OS
- MS
- DS
- Weakens
- P+ (premise booster) (this can be tricky)

Note: Sometimes, all it takes is one word to destroy what might seem like a correct answer choice. Pay very close attention to the answer choices.

blah170blah

17. Sufficient Assumption
Step 1: Underline conclusion
Step 2: Identify premises
Step 3: Diagram (most of these should be diagrammable into true conditional statements or at least pseudo conditional statements)
Step 4a: Identify what needs to be linked between A --> C (does a conditional need to be added, is this a term shift?)
Step 4b: If you can't find this, odds are you need to actually link A --> C (so this is the correct answer unto itself)
Step 5: Find the correct answer choice

18. Types of Arguments
1) Causal
-- To operate, remember: SC -- SE, NC -- NE, reverse causation, alt. causes

2) Evidence
-- To operate, you have to either weaken or strengthen the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion. Ask yourself: is the sample representative (skinny people on x diet is skinny -- is it actually the diet?), is this mere correlation and not causation (drug is correlated to x effect)

3) Phenomenon = confirms hypothesis (typically meteors and dinosaurs)
-- Always ask yourself if something else could have caused the phenomenon in question (if weakening, then the correct AC will be whatever else caused that phenomenon; if strengthening, the correct AC will be that no alt cause exists)

4) 2 groups = same result
-- In LSAT land, this is impossible. These 2 groups must be similar in some crucial way to get the same result.

5) Missing parts / modality
-- Think about the LR question that talks about how parking makes people aggressive. The correct AC had to address why something took both 30 seconds and the 50 seconds, not just the 30 seconds.

19. Weaken
Step 1: Identify conclusion
Step 2: Diagram argument core (what is the major premise(s))
Step 3a: If causal assumption, then weaken through the various ways you destroy causal arguments (NC --> SE, SC --> NE, reverse causation, existence of alt causes)
Step 3b: If not a causal argument, then try to weaken by looking at the terms. Look for term shifts.
Step 3c: If this is a group argument, weaken by either showing that the 2 groups are different (if the argument treats the 2 groups similarly). Or, weaken by showing the 2 groups are similar (if the argument treats the 2 groups differently).
Step 4: Process of Elimination
- FIC
- OS
- P- (premise weakener) (is tricky, don't rely on this too much unless you have to)
- MS
- DS
- Strengthens

Note: Sometimes, all it takes is one word to destroy what might seem like a correct answer choice. Pay very close attention to the answer choices.

jihyun.lee

This is brilliant! I think this will be very helpful for us. Thanks for sharing )

jdawg113

2 comments:
1) maybe include a index, Im sure there are some people that may be confused by some acronyms
2) for 5(second post) I would include the 39 sec aswell as that is the main thing(imo) that helps with the AC... more you want to address why it took 30 sec, 39 sec AND 50 seconds instead of focusing just on the difference between 30 and 39 seconds (difference being theres no car waiting vs no car waiting so realizing the 3rd scenario adds a new variable aka pressure from honking allows TCR to be more clear)

blah170blah

Oh thanks jdawg! I was trying to do that from memory and must have mixed up the numbers. Will fix

jdawg113

didnt mix up the numbers, just left one out