We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Jonathan uses which one of the following techniques in his response to Lydia?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, Lydia, tells us seabirds often become entangled in equipment owned by fishing companies. Lydia concludes on the basis of this that the fishing companies should assume responsibility for the medical treatment of these animals.
Lydia’s position makes an assumption here. If our conclusion tells us that something should happen, our evidence needs to give us reasoning to guarantee the outcome should occur. Perhaps, for instance, there is a law indicating those causing harm to animals should be responsible for them. But without this information the evidence does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the fisherman should be responsible for anything.
Jonathan does not quite hit the assumption out of the ballpark. In response, our second speaker concludes the proposal should not be adopted because the most injured birds won’t be able to return to the wild. Remind yourself here of how uncertain the number of “most injured birds” is. Perhaps 99.99% of the birds are injured mildly and 0.01% are the “most injured” with extensive injuries. Putting things into context, Jonathon’s response asking us to consider a group that could be impossibly small and irrelevant to Lydia’s ultimate conclusion.
Knowing that we are looking for an answer choice that will highlight Jonathon’s use of a small subset of these animals in a (poor) attempt to weaken Lydia’s reasoning we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice accuses Lydia of a personal attack. But without any reference to Lydia’s motivation or other personal characteristics, we have to eliminate this answer from contention.
Answer Choice (B) We can eliminate this answer for a similar reason why we eliminated answer choice A. Like a personal attack, B accuses Lydia of being wrapped up in their personal interests - an attack we do not see used as the reasoning for Jonathon’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice goes too far in the extreme. By accusing our second speaker of not wanting to interfere with wildlife in any way, this answer choice claims Jonathon’s conclusion goes even further than we can see in the stimulus.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly the answer we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that references Jonathon’s use of the sickest group of birds in an attempt to weaken Lydia’s argument.
Answer Choice (E) While Lydia’s feelings are addressed at the beginning of Jonathan’s argument, this is not the reasoning used to prove Jonathon’s main point. They claim we should not adopt the proposal because of this sub-group of birds. Not because of Lydia’s personal feelings in the matter.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “The argument uses which one of the following argumentative techniques?”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
The philosopher begins their argument by explaining a belief of the thesis absolute motion; the change in an object’s position over time does not need a reference item for measurement. We are told a well-respected physicist claims the thesis to be incoherent. The philosopher concludes that because an incoherent thesis cannot be a description of reality, the thesis is incorrect (motion cannot be absolute.) Knowing that our stimulus uses the belief of the physicist to support their argument, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Without the use of “technological terminology” in the stimulus, we can eliminate answer choice A.
Answer Choice (B) Our stimulus is not suggesting a change in definition as suggested by this answer choice. Instead the argument tells us that a particular thesis is not correct.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly describes the author’s use of an authority (the physicist) to support the main conclusion.
Answer Choice (D) If this answer choice were correct, we would need to see the use of some sort of observational evidence in the stimulus. Without this information, we can eliminate answer choice D from contention.
Answer Choice (E) This is not descriptively accurate. This answer choice accuses the stimulus of referring to different regions and comparing those to the entire region. Without any sort of “region” distinction we will have to eliminate answer choice E.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “Myrna responds to Roland by…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
Immediately we should make note of the two speakers at play. This means we could possibly be dealing with two different conclusions with different levels of support. Our first speaker, Myrna, begins the discussion by introducing a claim; people’s calorie breakdown should consist of 30% or less of fat compared to the 37% that makes up a person’s diet in this country on average.
Roland responds to this claim with a hypothetical. The second speaker explains if everyone were to follow this recommendation, a very small percent of people would live a tiny bit longer than they would otherwise. Ronald concludes that such a sacrifice is not worthwhile as a result. Here, Ronald makes an assumption. By telling us that a possible 3 month extension is not worthwhile, Roland has assumed there are no possible worthwhile benefits aside from living for another 3 months.
Myrna points out this assumption in their reply. The speaker tells us a low-fat diet not only has the potential to extend life expectancy, but also it has the ability to reduce the recurrence of diseases that are impacting people on a daily basis. Myrna weakens Roland’s position by pointing out there are other benefits that may not be directly related to life expectancy. Having broken down the arguments of our speakers, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) If Mryna were disputing the correctness of the facts we would expect them to introduce some information that misaligned with Roland’s argument. Because of this we can eliminate answer choice A.
Correct Answer Choice (B) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that highlights Myrna’s method to have Roland consider benefits outside of life expectancy.
Answer Choice (C) Similar to answer choice A, this answer accuses Myrna of disputing the factual correctness of Roland’s statistics. Because Myrna introduces a completely new topic of consideration we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer Choice (D) We do not see Mryna refer to the sources used to create Roland’s argument. We can eliminate answer choice D because of this.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice accuses Myrna of engaging in circular reasoning - where we use the conclusion as the evidence for our conclusion. Without some sort of circular train of thought (we should follow the diet because we should follow the diet) we can eliminate this answer choice from contention.
This is a Sufficient Assumption (SA) question and we know this because of the question stem: “… an assumption that would make the conclusion in the passage a logical one?”
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would validate (not just strengthen) the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re also using that rule to render the argument “valid.” The way to prephrase our answer choice is by tying our premises and conclusion together into a rule: “If [premise] à then [conclusion].”
Our first sentence is describing how some accountants use adding machines while some use computers. I can’t give examples of the two, but it doesn’t matter. If it did, the stimulus would specify. What is important about the difference between the two is given in the next sentence: complex computers are faster than adding machines: they’re efficient compared to adding machines as we can do more in less time. So far, this makes sense.
The next sentence begins with a conclusion indicator. I haven’t seen anything that looks like a conclusion, but let’s read the whole sentence before we put labels on anything. The author explicitly assumes that the costs of the two machines are equal and then claims that accountants who use complex computers earn more per hour than accountants who use adding machines.
Hang on a minute – there’s a huge gap here between doing more calculations per hour and earning more per hour. These two things aren’t necessarily related. What if they work on salary and their bonuses do not depend on how much work they do? What if they only get a fixed number of clients and finishing work sooner rather than later has no bearing on how much they will earn?
If order to bridge this gap in our prephrase, we can simply say something like “the more calculations accountants are able to do, the more they can earn.”
Answer Choice (A) This is incorrect. Our rule doesn’t care about the number of accountants that are using the complex machine. The rule wants to address the gap between using the machine and how it affects earnings.
Answer Choice (B) This is close, but it’s wrong. Earnings are affected by the number of calculations one can perform, it’s not about the number of hours. If it was about the number of hours, it would be better to use a slower calculator as it would take more time to do the job.
Correct Answer Choice (C) It’s a paraphrase of our prephrase.
Answer Choice (D) This is not correct because this would weaken the conclusion: they’d be able to charge more using the adding machine and, assuming the price charged is proportional to earnings, they would be able to earn more.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice establishes a vague relationship between earning and money. It’s not enough. We need a positive relationship between the two.
This is a sufficient assumption question because the question stem says: “conclusion follows logically…if which one… is assumed?”
Sufficient assumption questions tend to be very formal. We’re looking for a rule that would 100% validate the conclusion, specifically by bridging the premise and conclusion through the rule. Not only are we extrapolating the rule from our argument, but we’re also using that rule to render the argument “valid.” The way to prephrase our answer choice is by tying our premises and conclusion together into a rule: “If [premise] → then [conclusion].”
Our first sentence is very straightforward: in bureaucracies, decisions involve many people. The sentence just elaborates on this by saying that no one person have more authority than the next person. These are both our premises.
Our conclusion states that in bureaucracies, risky projects are never undertaken. That’s a big jump! From “bureaucracy decisions involving multiple people” to concluding “risky projects are never undertaken”? What if that is the exact they take on risky projects? For example, they could say that because many people are involved, they’re able to prepare for every outcome.
In order for our conclusion to follow, we need to link up the idea in the premises to the conclusion: when multiple people are involved in decisions and no one has the authority, risky projects will not be taken.
Answer Choice (A) This isn’t correct. We’re trying to make our conclusion about risky projects not being taken on valid; the fact that projects always require risk doesn’t help the gap in our argument.
Answer Choice (B) This isn’t correct either. The gap here is that the argument assumes that have many people involved in a decision means that no risky project will be taken. If we plug this into our stimulus, this doesn’t help validate our conclusion. It could support it, but there are too many assumption we need to make to arrive to our conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) This is more or less what our premises are trying to say, but again, it’s not helping to validate our conclusion about risky project not being taken on in bureaucracies. Additionally, we’re not concerned with what groups of people will take risks - we specifically interested in bureaucracies who will not take risks.
Correct Answer Choice (D) We said we weren’t interested in people who take risks, but this is a conditional statement! The answer choice is saying “when risk take, then single individual power to decide.” Taking the contrapositive of this would be: if multiple people have the power to decide, the risk is not taken. See how “no risk taken” is in the necessary condition? This is the NC in our rule, and it’s also our conclusion. Our premises trigger the contrapositive of this answer and allow us to draw our conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) This isn’t correct; what people do on there own is outside the scope of their decision as a group. This doesn’t help us draw our conclusion.
This is a necessary assumption question because the stem tells us that the argument “depends on the assumption.”
Necessary assumption questions fall under the subset of strengthen questions. All of the things we learned for strengthen, SA, and PSA question are still very important here! We’re going to be analyzing the stimulus the same way: identify the premise and conclusion, evaluate the argument, and determine what is missing. Our approach to the questions is very different. For NA question, in order for our conclusion to be true, our correct answer must be true. Without the correct answer, our argument will fall apart. This is what we’re looking for in our answer choice. Remember, we can always test our answer choices by using the negation test: if we negate the answer choice and it destroys our argument, it is the correct answer!
The first sentence is pretty straight-forward: the permits are issued in terms of pounds of each chemicals that can be dumped into the waterway per day. So, each chemical has a specified weight that can be dumped in the water each day. We’re also told how these numbers are calculated: by looking at the effects dilution in the water based on the amount of water flowing through the waterway. So there’s two variables here: the dilution and how much water passes through the waterway. This makes sense: if you have more/less water flowing through the waterway, dilution will change. Great! The next sentence is the conclusion: based on all of this information, the waterway is protected.
On the LSAT, there is a correct amount of skepticism you need to have. The argument is okay but, while it’s difficult to pinpoint, there is a gap here. A number of things could happen in order for this conclusion to not be true. For example, what if no one follows these guidelines? What if calculation of water flowing through the waterway isn’t accurate because the flow of water changes through the day? Any number of things need to be true if our conclusion, the waterway is protected, is true.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is necessary for the argument! If, even in safe quantities, chemicals interact to form harmful ones, that would destroy our argument.
Answer Choice (B) Is rapid dispersion necessary? Maybe the flow is very slow, but the amount of chemicals allowed in the waterway is very low. This is not good.
Answer Choice (C) This is also not necessary. Let’s take the negation of this sentence: some chemicals are prohibited from being discharged into the waterway. So, what? Perhaps arsenic isn’t not allowed to be dumped - is that compatible with the argument? Yes! Prohibiting certain chemicals to be dumped in the waterway does not destroy the argument.
Answer Choice (D) This is also not necessary. The permits indicate the max amount that can be dumped into the water, which means dumping anything at the maximum amount or below is fine. Negating this sentence (they dump the full amount indicated by the permit) does not destroy the argument.
Answer Choice (E) This weakens our argument a little bit - it mentions what we’re not taking into consideration in an effort to say that the waterway may not be as protected as the argument says. This is out.
This is a necessary assumption question because the stem tells us that the argument is “depends” of the which of the offered “assumption.”
Necessary assumption questions fall under the subset of strengthen questions. All of the things we learned for strengthen, SA, and PSA question are still very important here! We’re going to be analyzing the stimulus the same way: identify the premise and conclusion, evaluate the argument, determine what, if anything, is missing. Our approach to the questions is very different. For NA question, in order for our conclusion to be true, our correct answer must be true. Without the correct answer, our argument will fall apart. This is what we’re looking for in our answer choice. Remember, we can always test our answer choices by using the negation test: if we negate the answer choice and it destroys our argument, its the correct answer!
This first sentence gives us the definition for addiction and, interestingly, the author uses “has been defined as” which kind of gives us the sense that this may be other people’s definition. This definition is that addiction means the dependence on and abuse of a certain substance. If we read onto the next sentence, even if the “however” is at the end, we can infer that the author does not agree with the running definition of addiction; he says that abuse and dependence do occur together.
The next two sentences are examples of this. He says cancer patients are dependent on morphine, but do not abuse it because they use it for their pain. And then he gives a general example of the reverse: a person can abuse morphine but does not need to dependent on it for anything.
Then we see our conclusion, which we predicted above: this definition of addiction is not correct.
This argument is fine. The salient feature of difficult NA question is that the correct answer choice can be VERY subtle. The negation test will be helpful for these answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This is not necessary to our argument. Cancer patients could have abused morphine is the past; the argument allows for this! The example in the argument is a hypothetical that can occur. And if we negate the answer choice (cancer patients sometimes abuse morphine), this is completely compatible with the argument because the example with the cancer patient is a hypothetical.
Answer Choice (B) This is not necessary for the argument. This answer choice is trying to draw a distinction between the hypothetical language of the argument and what will happen. However, it is not necessary for all cancer patients to often become dependent on morphine. Similar to what we said in AC (A), cancer patients rarely (instead of often) becoming dependent to morphine and the rest never becoming dependent is compatible with the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (C) When we read the argument, we just assumed that we were obviously talking about cancer patients who were addicted to morphine. But, we did not explicitly say that. If we negate this answer choice, it destroys our argument because the example we give to lend support to our argument becomes useless if the cancer patients are not addicted. In other words, if the individuals discussed in our examples are just dependent on or abusing a substance and not addicted, our argument falls apart. Very subtle!
Answer Choice (D) Similar to (A) and (B), this is not necessary for the argument. It could be the case that some cancer patients are just abusing the drug without being dependent on it. The negation of this doesn’t destroy our argument.
Answer Choice (E) This would weaken our argument; we’re trying to prove that abuse and dependence can happen separately while being addicted.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism at that…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
The argument begins by paying out two factual events; at the same time humans spread to America, several species went extinct. The stimulus goes on to conclude from this information we know that hunting on the part of the humans is what ultimately caused the extinction of these different species.
The word “cause” points out exactly what type of flaw we are dealing with. Our author assumes a causal relationship from a correlation between two variables. Remember that our conclusion, if valid, would be something that must be true on the basis of the premises. But it does not make sense to conclude one thing caused another if all we know is that those two events happened at the same time. Just because they occur at the same time does not preclude the possibility of a 3rd outside factor causing both human migration and the extinctions.
Knowing this stimulus incorrectly assumes causation from correlation, we can jump into the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. We are not introduced to a viewpoint where humans are seen as “not included in nature”. Rather, we are told that humans are so involved in nature there is an impact on the animals inhabiting this area.
Answer Choice (B) There are a few things that are not descriptively accurate about this answer choice. First, the answer accuses our argument of identifying a “myth” – a belief not based in objective fact and reason. But our issue with the argument is not the lack of reasoning. Our issue is that the reasoning provided does not lead us to our conclusion. Additionally, by telling us that the stimulus “presupposes what it attempts to prove,” answer choice B claims the existence of circular reasoning in our argument. When reasoning is circular, the conclusion is used as the evidence for the conclusion. We do not see an argument in the form of “B is true because B is true.” Knowing this, we can eliminate the answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not contradict the content of our stimulus, but it is not the flaw of our overall stimulus. It is true that there may have been a different level of significance of the extinctions of animals in modern times versus prehistoric times, our stimulus is not concerned with the past versus the future. Instead, our answer choice has to describe something affecting something else simply because they exist at the same time.
Answer Choice (D) We can’t eliminate this answer choice based on its descriptive accuracy. There very well could have been many other species that went extinct after humans inhabited North America. But whether or not other animals happened to go extinct during this time period does not point out the problem with our stimulus. Our argument takes a specific position on what the extinction of some animals means. Whether or not there were additional extinctions does not point out the causal issue at play in this argument.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate answer choice points out the issue in our author’s interpretation of the evidence. This is the only answer choice that attacks that interpretation while pointing out the far too strong causal relationship the author concludes.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The reasoning that Oscar uses in supporting his prediction is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. Our first speaker begins by telling us that due to emerging technology, speed of information processing will become the single most important factor in determining wealth. By this, Oscar means that countries will no longer be generally rich in the northern hemisphere and generally poor in the southern hemisphere. The first speaker uses this evidence to assert their overall conclusion that a country’s economic state will soon reflect the speed at which they process information.
The assumption in Oscar’s argument is tricky to find. At first glance, the argument does not seem terribly egregious. It makes sense that if tech speed = wealth, then the fastest countries would be the wealthiest and the slowest countries would be the least wealthy. But remember when looking at a flaw question that our conclusion must be forced to occur on the basis of our premises. Oscar is drawing a pretty strong conclusion here. By saying that a country’s wealth will be determined by speed of information processing, the speaker is also assuming that there is not some other factor that is going to be more important in the future. That feels almost like an obvious piece of information. Clearly, if Oscar thinks information processing speed is #1, he does not think some other factor is #1. But this is exactly how the assumption plays out into our correct flaw answer choice.
You may have noticed our question stem does not actually require us to analyze Sylvia’s argument. But, Sylvia does provide good insight into at least one way to describe what is wrong with Oscar’s position. Sylvia tells us that poor countries lack the means to acquire this technology to begin with. As a result, the technology will only worsen the existing wealth disparity between north and south. This is where we can see some disagreement between Oscar and Sylvia. While Oscar believes speed of information processing is going to be the ultimate determining factor, Sylvia identifies the beginning wealth of the country to begin with will actually impact eventual economic performance. The second speaker’s argument can help us confirm what we suspect to be the problem with the argument. Oscar concludes one factor will reign supreme. Sylvia confirms the assumption of our first speaker by saying there is a possibility some other factor will actually play the most important role.
Knowing our correct answer will point out Oscar’s assumption of wealth distribution through the globe, we can proceed into answer elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in Oscar’s argument. The first speaker tells us because speed is the most important factor, the conclusion follows. Whether or not there is another teeny tiny nearly insignificant factor that weighs .05% on wealth generation in a country is not the issue asserted by Oscar’s reasoning.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is again descriptively accurate but not what we are looking for as the flaw of Oscar’s position. The failure to establish this wealth division as the most important problem does not address Oscar’s assumption about the dissolution of that northern and southern hemisphere divide.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively correct answer choice is the only one that points out the same possibility as Sylvia; maybe processing speed is not the guaranteed determinant of wealth. Instead, other factors such as beginning economic performance would change predicted wealth levels. This is the only answer choice that hits on the reasoning of Oscar’s argument. Although Sylvia isn’t the one telling us about a “combination” of other factors, this answer choice does point out the importance of some other considerations.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the ultimate issue of our argument. While it is true that Oscar does not provide us with an exact reason as to why technology will provide only beneficial effects, that is not the concern of our discussion. Rather than debating whether this technology will be purely beneficial, Oscar explores the consequences of one aspect.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is again descriptively accurate but not the ultimate issue in our discussion. Whether or not there is a distinction between the rich people in wealthy countries versus slightly less rich people in wealthy countries does not hone in on Oscar’s assumption about the factors impacting wealth and the adaptation of technology.