Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

How do you distinguish between "Trap Answer" final sentences on MP questions, and correct answers?

-__ Mc Kim __--__ Mc Kim __- Member
in Logical Reasoning 8 karma

I've been going through MP questions to make sure that I am able to flesh out the main point/conclusion of different texts. I remember at some point JY says that often for harder questions, the LSAT's will try to trick you by throwing in a "Thus," or some indicator word around those lines at the end of a paragraph to throw you off. But, I've found recently that I've gotten a couple of questions wrong because when it came to the wire I choose the choice that was not the final sentence, but turned out to be the final sentence. For example I'm currently on LSAT 44 - Section 2 - Question 16, and was tricked because I ignored the "Hence," at the end. While I read the comments and understand the explanations for why B (what I choose) was wrong and E (the correct answer) was right, I was wondering if anyone has some general advice/steps to take when looking at a stimulus to figure out whether a last sentence with a conclusion indicator is right or wrong.

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • AlexAlex Alum Member ⭐
    edited January 2019 23929 karma

    A good way to check if you’re ever stuck between 2 conclusions is to see if the conclusion you’ve ID’d as the Main Conclusion is supported by the sub conclusion.

    Say we have something like this in a MP stim:

    The new legislation the mayor is proposing should not be passed. It will be too costly and would require taxes to be raised. Taxes being raised would cause mass riots in the streets. Hence, the new legislation would be a disaster.

    Okay, so we have two conclusions in this argument.

    “the new legislation the mayor is proposing should not be passed” and;

    “The new legislation would be a disaster.”

    We need to identify which one is supporting which. Does it make sense that the the legislation should not be passed THEREFORE the new legislation is a disaster?

    Or, does it seem to make more sense that The new legislation would be a disaster THEREFORE It should not be passed.

    The second option, right? That’s because the last sentence/sub-conclusion is supporting the main conclusion up top stating that it should not be passed. So, that’s out main conclusion!

Sign In or Register to comment.