Free LSAT resources
Free law school admissions resources

Part v. whole

(PvW)

Stimuli that assume characteristics that apply to something as a whole must also apply to all its parts, or vice versa.

Avg. 0.35 per section
12%
21%
26%
21%
21%

Avg. difficulty: 3.2

Key tactics

  • "Parts of a thing" and "the whole thing" are DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Sometimes characteristics that apply to one apply to the other, and sometimes they don't.
  • "Being a cat," for example, is a characteristic that does not transfer whole-to-part. If my pet Scratchy (whole) is a cat, that does not mean all the hairs on its body (parts) are also cats.
  • "Being made of pure gold," on the other hand, does transwer whole-to-part. If my gold bar (whole) is made of pure gold, then all the atoms inside it (parts) are made of pure gold.
  • The key is to recognize parts and wholes when they appear in arguments, and THINK CRITICALLY about whether the characteristics mentioned validly transfer from one to the other.

Answer choice tips

  • When an argument is flawed because it goes "whole-to-part," the LSAT treats that differently from an argument that goes "part-to-whole." In a parallel question, for example, it is possible for an answer choice to be incorrect because it goes the wrong direction, despite matching the general flaw.
  • Example answer choices that point to this flaw:
  • - takes for granted that a whole story will have a given characteristic if each of its parts has that characteristic.
  • - assumes that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself
  • - concludes that someone is not a member of a group on the grounds that that person does not have a characteristic that the group as a whole has

Looking for more?

7Sage offers a full course of video lessons that cover each question type in depth, targeted drills, and performance analytics.

Logical reasoning question types

Alternate explanation Analogy (LR) Argument part Bad authority Causal chain Causal mechanism Causal reasoning Circular reasoning Conditional reasoning Confusing sufficiency and necessity Correlation Diagram? Directionally wrong Eliminating options Equivocation Evaluate Except (LR) Failed alternate explanation False dichotomy Fighting the hypothetical Fill in the blank Flaw or descriptive weakening Illusory inconsistency Inference Internal contradiction Irrelevant corroboration Kick it up Lack of support v. false conclusion Link assumption Main conclusion or main point Math Mental state v. reality Method of reasoning or descriptive Miscellaneous (LR) Misdirected response Most strongly supported Must be false Must be true Necessary assumption Parallel flawed method of reasoning Parallel method of reasoning Part v. whole Phenomenon-hypothesis (LR) Plausibility Point at issue: agree Point at issue: disagree Principle PSA - find or complete the application PSA - find the rule Quantifier Relative v. absolute Resolve reconcile or explain Rule-application Sampling Source attack Strengthen Sufficient assumption Time Unwarranted assumption Value judgment Weaken Weighing factors

Reading comprehension question types

Analogy (RC) Application Art Author’s attitude Author’s perspective Comparative Critique or debate Describe approach Describe organization Describe relationship Except (RC) Humanities Implied Law Logical continuation Main point Meaning in context (of word, phrase, or idea) Miscellaneous (RC) Other’s perspective Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC) Principle or generalization Problem-analysis Purpose in context (of word, phrase, or idea) Purpose of paragraph Purpose of passage Science Single position Spotlight Stated Structure WSE (RC)

Confirm action

Are you sure?