Reading Comprehension: Cheat Sheets
February 4, 2024
Logical Reasoning: Cheat Sheets
- Law Prep with Josh
- Logical Reasoning: Cheat Sheets
Logical Reasoning: Cheat Sheets
Logical Reasoning Overview
| Section | Details |
| Weightage | Roughly half of your total points |
| Duration | 35 minutes per section |
| Length | Each section has 24-26 questions |
| Task | Analyze arguments or information to answer questions |
Anatomy of a Logical Reasoning Question
| Component | Details |
| Passage/Stimulus | Contains argument(s) or information for answering the question. May feature two speakers. |
| Question/Task | Poses a question related to the argument or information in the stimulus. |
| Choices | Five options provided, only one correct answer. |
Argument Structure
| Element | Description |
| Conclusion | The main point the speaker wants you to accept, can be a belief, comparison, assessment, or recommendation. |
| Evidence | Statements provided to support the conclusion, varying from examples, appeals, historical data, analogies, to generalizations. |
| Types of Conclusion | Varies from comparisons, causations, assessments, recommendations, predictions, to simple beliefs, each carrying different implications for answering questions. |
Basic strategies
| Do | Don’t |
| Prioritize understanding over speed: Grasp the argument’s structure before diving into answers. | Rush through questions: Avoid skimming to save time; it can lead to misunderstandings. |
| Actively engage with the material: Use techniques like underlining or noting keywords to maintain focus. | Passively read: Avoid zoning out by engaging actively with the content. |
| Categorize the argument: Identify if the conclusion is a belief, recommendation, prediction, etc., to better analyze the argument. | Overlook argument types: Recognizing the type of conclusion can guide your analysis. |
| Evaluate evidence critically: Assess whether the evidence provided sufficiently supports the conclusion. | Accept evidence at face value: Question the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. |
| Consider alternative explanations: Especially in causal arguments, look for other possible causes. | Narrow your focus too quickly: Be open to multiple interpretations and possibilities. |
Finding Conclusions: A Checklist
Step |
Strategy |
Identify the Main Point |
Determine the central prediction, judgment, interpretation, or concept the arguer is trying to convince us of. |
Search for Support Indicators |
Look for words such as because, since, and for that indicate the statements following them provide support, not the conclusion. |
Verify the Statement |
Make sure the statement you’ve selected doesn’t in turn support another claim, indicating the latter is the actual main conclusion. |
Look for Conclusion Indicators |
Seek out words like thus and therefore which signal conclusions. Words such as however, yet, although, and but may also lead to conclusion statements. |
Clarify Ambiguity |
If the main conclusion uses vague pronouns (e.g., “this”), restate the conclusion clearly using information from the rest of the passage. |
Confirm Your Choice |
Choose the option that accurately restates the main conclusion you have identified. |
More advanced strategies
| Do | Don’t |
| Understand the anatomy of a Logical Reasoning question: Passage, Question, Choices. | Overlook the structure of an argument: Ignoring the conclusion, evidence, and how they interact. |
| Identify the conclusion types: Recommendations, predictions, comparisons, causations, assessments, and simple beliefs. | Confuse conclusion types: Misidentifying the nature of the conclusion can lead to incorrect answers. |
| Recognize the types of evidence: Examples, what others say, using the past, analogies, generalizing from a sample. | Ignore the relevance and sufficiency of evidence: Not all evidence equally supports a conclusion. |
| Utilize common rebuttal structures effectively: Counterexamples, alternate possibilities, conditional relationships, and causation based on correlation. | Misinterpret rebuttal evidence: Failing to see how counterarguments or alternate causes weaken an argument. |
| Apply logical reasoning strategies: Breaking down arguments, understanding conclusion and support, predicting answers, evaluating choices. | Rush the thought process or skip strategic question skipping: Missing opportunities to optimize scoring by poor time management or strategy. |
| Practice active reading with a focus on argument components: Conclusion, evidence, and their interaction. | Get lost in complex arguments without simplifying: Losing track of the argument’s core components under a load of information. |
| Distinguish between definite and indefinite conclusions: Being aware of the degree of certainty expressed. | Overlook the degree of conclusions: Failing to match the certainty level between argument and answer choices. |
| Diagram conditional relationships when necessary: Visualizing complex logical structures to clarify understanding. | Neglect alternate causes in causal arguments: Overlooking potential alternate explanations for observed effects. |
| Consider the appropriateness of samples used in generalizations: Ensuring representativeness and relevance. | Accept flawed analogies without scrutiny: Forgetting to question the comparability of the situations or examples provided. |
Viewing evidence critically
| Evidence Type | Approach |
| Examples and Appeals | Look for concrete instances or authoritative opinions supporting the conclusion. Question their comprehensiveness and relevance. |
| Historical Data | Consider past events as indicative but not conclusive proof of future outcomes. Be wary of changes over time. |
| Analogies | Ensure comparisons are logically sound and relevant. Analogies should be scrutinized for accuracy. |
| Generalizations | Examine the representativeness of the sample used for the general claim. Ensure it’s broad and applicable enough. |
Common LSAT Flaws
| Flaw | Explanation | Example |
| Causation/Correlation | Arguers often confuse correlation (things happening together) with causation (one thing causing another) without considering other possibilities or reversed causality. | Increased social media use correlates with higher levels of anxiety. Therefore, to reduce anxiety, we must decrease social media usage. |
| Sampling | General conclusions are drawn from an unrepresentative or biased sample. | A survey in a luxury shopping mall finds high support for expensive car brands, concluding that most city residents prefer luxury cars. |
| Ad Hominem | The arguer attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself, ignoring that personal characteristics are irrelevant to the argument’s validity. | A politician dismisses criticism of their policy by highlighting the critic’s lack of political experience, rather than addressing the criticism itself. |
| Quantity vs. Percent | Confusing absolute quantities with percentages, or treating them as if they are directly comparable without considering the actual numbers involved. | 5% of the town’s population attended the concert last year, while this year 10% attended. Therefore, the concert is now twice as popular, ignoring the town’s population growth. |
| Lack of Evidence as Proof | Assuming that a lack of evidence for something proves that it does not exist or is false. | There’s no concrete evidence proving the existence of extraterrestrial life, so extraterrestrial life must not exist. |
| False Dichotomy | Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when in fact more options exist. | You either support free speech or you endorse censorship. Ignoring that one can support free speech with reasonable restrictions. |
| Possible vs. Certain | Assuming that because something is possible, it is guaranteed to happen. | Our team has the best record this season, so it’s certain that we’ll win the championship. |
| Circular Reasoning | The conclusion is assumed in the premise, offering no real argument but simply restating the initial assertion. | Reading fiction is the best way to improve empathy because the best method to enhance understanding of others is by reading novels. |
| Equivocation | Using a term in different contexts or senses in the argument, leading to a misleading or ambiguous conclusion. | “The law implies consent, and good citizens follow the law. Therefore, if you’re a good citizen, you’ve consented to all government policies.” Using “consent” ambiguously. |
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Josh's LSAT Tutoring
Related Post
Logical Reasoning: Cheat Sheets
February 4, 2024
Why You Should Do Nothing
January 28, 2024
9 ways to Build a Strong Foundation in Legal Writing
January 28, 2024