Are you gearing up for the LSAT and feeling a bit overwhelmed by the Logical Reasoning (LR) section? You're not alone! This section is a critical part of the exam, as it tests key skills that are essential for law school success. Today, we’re going to break down some of the most common LR question types, helping you understand and master them one by one.
Understanding Logical Reasoning
Logical Reasoning questions are designed to assess your ability to analyze, evaluate, and complete arguments. Each question presents a short passage followed by a question that requires you to interpret the text in some way. These questions measure your critical thinking skills, your ability to make inferences, and your understanding of argument structures.
Common Logical Reasoning Question Types
This table outlines 3 categories of logical reasoning question types, below I go into detail on specific questions types and examples of what you might be looking for.
Evaluative | Non-Evaluative | Non-Argument | |
Desc. | These focus on identifying logical gaps or assumptions within an argument and determine what information would be necessary to address the gaps/assumptions. | These focus on understanding the structure and components of the argument, rather than evaluating its validity. | These focus on drawing conclusions, making inferences, or evaluating information presented in the passage without analyzing an argument. |
Question Types |
|
|
|
Evaluative Question Types
Strengthen: In these questions, you are asked to select an option that provides additional support to the argument, thereby making it more logically sound. This involves pinpointing weaknesses in the original argument and selecting an answer that mitigates these weaknesses, effectively bolstering the argument’s conclusion. Focus on understanding the core argument and think about what kind of information could make it stronger—whether by filling a logical gap or adding corroborative details.
Premise: Regular exercise improves cardiovascular health.
To strengthen the argument, we could add evidence such as "Individuals who exercise regularly have lower cholesterol levels."
Weaken: Opposite to strengthen questions, these look for an answer choice that introduces doubt about the argument’s conclusion. This might involve highlighting a logical oversight in the argument or introducing new information that contradicts the conclusion. A strong strategy is to consider how the argument might fail under different circumstances.
Premise: The new restaurant has received many positive reviews.
To weaken the argument, we could introduce evidence such as "Most of the positive reviews were written by paid reviewers."
Assumption: These require you to identify sufficient or necessary assumptions that the argument depends on. An assumption in this context is something the argument needs to be true for the conclusion to hold, but which isn't stated in the argument. Identifying assumptions involves understanding the bridge between the evidence and the conclusion.
Premise: If Jane studies diligently, she will pass the exam.
To find the assumption, we might need to identify that there are no other factors that could affect Jane's performance on the exam.
Flaw: These questions present you with an argument that contains a logical fallacy or error in reasoning, and you must identify what exactly is wrong. This might involve recognizing common fallacies like circular reasoning, hasty generalizations, or false dichotomies. Understanding different types of logical fallacies can be particularly useful here.
Premise: All great writers are also great readers.
The flaw might be that this is an overgeneralization, as it doesn't account for the possibility of individuals who are great writers but not great readers.
Parallel Flaw: Similar to parallel reasoning (under non-evaluative question types), but here you must identify an option that shares the same logical error as the argument in the question. This tests your ability to diagnose and understand specific logical errors in varying contexts. This requires understanding exactly what the flaw is in the original argument and then recognizing a similar flawed reasoning pattern in one of the answer choices. The below two arguments use similar flawed reasoning:
Whenever I wear my lucky socks, my team wins. Therefore, my lucky socks must be the reason my team wins.
Whenever I see a black cat, something bad happens. Therefore, black cats must bring bad luck.
Principle: In principle questions, test-takers are either (1) asked to identify a general principle or rule that would justify the author's reasoning, or (2) presented with a general principle or rule and asked to apply this principle or rule to a new situation.
Author's reasoning: Laws banning handheld electronic device use while driving are necessary to enhance road safety, citing studies showing a correlation between distracted driving and increased traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities.
Principle that justifies reasoning: Any activity that diverts a driver's attention from the road significantly increases the risk of accidents.
Non-Evaluative Question Types
Method of Reasoning: These questions ask test-takers to identify an answer that matches the relationship between the support and the conclusion that was presented in the stimulus. This requires an understanding of the fundamental principles of logical reasoning, and a capability of applying those to different scenarios.
Parallel Reasoning: These questions require you to find another argument that mirrors the logical structure of the original. This involves recognizing the form and function of the argument, irrespective of the content, and matching it to a similarly structured argument among the choices. The below two arguments have parallel reasoning, they both follow the structure A > B, B > C, therefore A > C.
If a person exercises regularly, then they will improve their physical fitness. If a person improves their physical fitness, then they will have better overall health. Therefore, if a person exercises regularly, then they will have better overall health.
If a company invests in employee training programs, then employees will acquire new skills. If employees acquire new skills, then they will become more productive. Therefore, if a company invests in employee training programs, then employees will become more productive.
Role of the Argumentation: These require identifying the function of a particular statement within the argument presented in the stimulus. These questions typically present as a statement or claim and ask test-takers to determine how it contributes to the overall argument. Test-takers must recognize whether the statement serves as evidence, a premise, a conclusion, a counterpoint, or provides support for another aspect of the argument.
Identify Conclusion: These questions ask you to pinpoint the main conclusion or point of the argument presented in the stimulus, which may include sifting through premises and supporting statements to identify the ultimate claim or infence the argument is trying to make.
Stimulus: A recent survey asked participants about their preferences for transportation options in urban areas. The majority of respondents expressed a strong preference for public transportation over personal vehicles, citing reasons such as cost-effectiveness, environmental concerns, and reduced traffic congestion. Additionally, many respondents mentioned that they would be more likely to use public transportation if it were more convenient and reliable. Addressing issues related to convenience and reliability could lead to increased usage of public transportation in urban areas.
Conclusion: Improving and expanding public transportation infrastructure in urban areas would increase its usage.
Non-Argument Question Types
Most Strongly Supported: These ask you to identify the answer choice that is best supported by the information provided in the stimulus. These require you to carefully evaluate the premises and evidence presented in the stimulus and select the answer choice that is most consistent with the information. While the correct answer may not necessarily be the only conclusion that can be drawn, it is the one htat is best supported by the evidence provided.
Must Be True: These questions ask you to choose an option that is most strongly supported by the information in the passage. This type of question tests your ability to draw logical conclusions directly from the facts presented. The key to success here is to avoid answers that seem plausible but are not explicitly supported by the text. Look for answers that consolidate all the presented facts without introducing new, unsupported ideas.
Premise 1: all mammals are warm-blooded.
Premise 2: cats are mammals
Therefore, it must be true that cats are warm-blooded.
Must Be False: This question type asks you to identify the answer choice that cannot be true based on the information provided in the stimulus. These require careful analysis of each answer option to eliminate those that could possibly be true, leaving only the one that must be false.
Premise 1: all dogs bark.
Premise 2: Fido is a dog.
Therefore, it must be false that Fido does not bark.
Identify the Disagreement: These questions present a conversation or debate between two individuals and ask test-takers to identify the issue or claim over which the speakers hold differing views. Test-takers must analyze the statements made by each speaker and identify the conflicting positions or contradictory statements in their arguments.
Speaker A: "I believe that stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in our society."
Speaker B: "I respectfully disagree. Enforcing existing laws and addressing mental health issues are more effective ways to address the root causes of gun violence."
The disagreement is the effectiveness of stricter gun control laws in reducing gun violence.
Identify the Agreement: These questions typically present a conversation or debate between two individuals and ask test-takers to identify the common ground or shared belief between them. Test-takers must analyze the statements made by each speaker and identify the point of convergence or consensus in their arguments.
Speaker A: "I believe that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power are crucial for reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change."
Speaker B: "I completely agree. Transitioning to renewable energy not only helps the environment but also promotes energy independence and creates new job opportunities in the green sector."
The agreement is that combating climate change requires a shift towards renewable energy sources.
Resolve the Paradox: These questions present a situation in which seemingly contradictory facts or observations are presented. You are asked to identify the answer choice that explains how the apparently conflicting pieces of information can both be true or valid. This requires critical analysis of the premises of the argument and finding the answer that reconciles the apparent paradox by providing a plausible explanation or additional context.
Stimulus: In a study of a remote island community, researchers found that the residents reported exceptionally high levels of happiness and life satisfaction despite facing significant economic challenges and limited access to modern amenities. Additionally, the island has a notably low average life expectancy compared to neighboring communities with better economic conditions.
Resolution: Despite economic challenges, the island community has a strong cultural tradition of valuing simplicity and contentment, which shapes residents' perceptions of happiness.
Inference: Inference questions ask you to draw a conclusion based solely on the facts provided. Unlike ‘Must Be True’ questions, which focus on what is explicitly stated, inference questions require you to extend beyond the facts to what logically must follow. The correct answer will be one that is impossible to deny if all the statements in the stimulus are true.
Statement: If it is raining, then the streets are wet.
Evidence: The streets are wet.
Inference: Therefore, it can be inferred that it is raining.
Practice Makes Perfect
Regular practice can significantly improve your performance in the LR section. Try to dissect arguments and reason through answer choices to build your analytical skills. It's helpful to spend time studying the LSAT by question type, doing multiple practice questions that follow the same question type. This trains your brain to recognize patterns, contributing to overall success.
The LR section of the LSAT can seem daunting, but understanding the different types of questions you’ll encounter is the first step towards mastery. With practice and patience, you can improve your logical reasoning skills and increase your chances of a great score.
Comments