Skip to content
Imperfect: first step is ID the gap/hole in the argument (first ID P and C)Necessary or Sufficient Assumption (more likely than not strong)FlawPSA (stronger; find the rule: more general; apply the rule: more specific)Parallel Flawed MoR (match strength of wording)PrincipleStrengthen (could strong)EvaluateWeaken (could strong)Resolve, Reconcile, Explain (could strong)Could be Perfect, but don’t have to be: our job is not to decipher if it’s a good argument Main ConclusionArgument PartPoint at issue: agree or disagreeMethod of ReasoningParallel Method of Reasoning (match strength of wording)Most Strongly SupportedFill in the BlankMust be TrueMust Be FalseInference
reread stimulus; rephrase into own words highlight red flags in each AC and fully eliminate 4 wrong answersrephrase ACs into your own wordsdown to 2 ACs: first get into your own words what the difference between them is (break them down every few words into precise language and pit them against each other)diagram, draw overlapping circles, jot down a chart or quick Spectrum of Support...Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument as a whole?Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion of the argument?FIRST, we want to make sure the AC has listed the correct part of the argument (Premise? ✅ Conclusion? ✅ Counterexample? ✅ And so on...)THEN, we want to make sure the rest of the AC is actually true. In the stimulus, is this phrase actually doing what the AC claims that it is doing? Go word-by-word or phrase-by-phrase to see if the AC actually lines up with the stimulus. Again, rephrase in your own words!!Your job before reading the ACs is to get as thorough and accurate of an understanding of the stimulus as possible! So, I recommend putting pen to paper and mapping it out visually in some way (if you’re a visual learner) or rephrasing in your head (if you’re not!)Logic diagrams, Venn diagrams, little charts and graphs, mental mapping... any of these might help! I’m going to emphasize again to HIGHLIGHT the (multiple) places in the stimulus where you find proof your AC is supported! in untimed practice, put every AC on a little sketched out spectrum of support and write down your evidence (word choice etc) as to why it goes thereRead the stimulus- take everything at face value DO NOT consider anything that is outside of the stimulus completely anchor down on what I am reading -Put it in layman’s term in needIdentify the premise and try to COMPREHEND what the stimulus is saving and identify the scope of the argumentOnce I get an understanding go straight to ACs be picky with wording, level of assumption and support.Eliminate AC that are not anchored in the stimulus,make sure I can identify a viable reason to eliminate an ACIf I am stuck between two answer choice, Identify the spectrum of support Think of these as the backwards or alternate version of PSAr questions!in general, you’ll see a term shift from the premise to the conclusion and we need an extra sentences that links those terms: we want to find an AC that includes BOTH of the terms, and sets up their relationship in the right way to test if right, add the AC back up to the stimulus, say it right before the conclusion, and ask yourself if everything follows logically?
q says “assumed” and...“needed,” “necessary,” “required” will also be in the question stem for it to be a Necessary AssumptionWhich one of the following principles is best illustrated by the study described above?The situation described above most closely conforms to which one of the following generalizations?Which one of the following generalizations is most clearly illustrated by the passage?The example above best illustrates which one of the following propositions?Peter and Yoko disagree over whether today's children's stories (explicit)Which one of the following is a point of disagreement between Meli and Sam? (explicit)Talbert's and Sklar's statements provide the strongest support for holding that they disagree with each other over whether (implicit)Lin's and Raphael's comments provide most support for the claim that they agree about (implicit)
LR Guide
Framework for understanding LR (this is just 1 idea; you should add or change as you go):
2 main types!
Complete arguments: Have a full argument (premises + main conclusion) in the stimulus (subsets: perfect vs imperfect arguments)
Incomplete Arguments (don’t necessarily have a main conclusion in the stimulus; they’re just a string of premises so do NOT ID conclusion): (lean toward weaker wording in correct AC)
What to do when you don’t know what to do:
Question Stems
tag
Bailey's Approach
Main issues:
Common question stems:
My approach:
Tips and tricks:
Notes:
Main Conclusion
1) Identify premises and conclusion.
1) “WHY” TEST: Do I have reason in the stimulus to believe this? (If yes, it's at least a conclusion. Now we gotta see if it's the main conclusion or a subconclusion...)
2) “A THEREFORE B” TEST: Does knowing this make me more likely to believe _______ [another potential conclusion], or is it the other way around? (if it does give you reason to believe something else, that “something else” is the main conclusion and you are dealing with the sub-conclusion.
2) Fully predict your answer to the question. The sentence you are predicting should line up almost exactly with the correct AC, as it is straight from the stimulus.
picking wrong MC out of sub and main
Argument Part
1) Underline or highlight the phrase they are asking about in the stimulus.
2) Identify premises and conclusion. To test a sentence...
1) Do I have reason in the stimulus to believe this? (If yes, it's at least a conclusion. Now we gotta see if it's the main conclusion or a subconclusion...)
2) Does knowing this make me more likely to believe _______ [another potential conclusion], or is it the other way around?
3) Ask yourself why the author bothered to include the phrase in the first place? Answer in general terms to partially predict.
“what role does this sentence play in the argument,” they will always have a specific sentence/fragment that you are deciding if it’s a premise or conclusion, basically
Most Strongly Supported
1) Remember that these stimuli are just strings of premises (and sometimes sub-conclusions, alternative explanations, counterexamples, etc) WITHOUT conclusions. It’s your job to find a conclusion among the ACs.
2) Go beyond identifying premises by using general Argument Part-style wording to describe what each sentence in the stimulus is effectively doing (is it a counterexample? Assumption? proposed hypothesis?) Have a structural breakdown of what the stimulus is attempting to convey.
3) (Very) partially predict a few options for correct AC’s! Chances are you can’t fully predict, but getting a feel for the direction or theme the stimulus is trying to get at can really help you in this case. Finally, keep in mind that the right AC could include additional info that wasn’t originally in the stimulus, but we are deciding if it’s most supported.
4) HIGHLIGHT your evidence in the text for these!! Might be just a couple words throughout the stimulus, but there should be concrete support. ALSO lean towards weaker wording (it’s easier to support... may, can, might, some, etc)
picking wrong MC out of last 2 ACs
q’s that say “MSS” but are referring to the ACs as the thing we are trying to support
could also include those fill in the blank questions (whichever has a _____ in the stim)
“Which one of the following conclusions is most supported by the information above?” (04.01.19)
“Which one of the following inferences is most supported by the information above?” (04.01.22)
“The economist’s statements [above], if true, most strongly support which one of the following?” (61.04.10)
Strengthen
1) Identify premises and conclusion.
2) Find the gap or hole: answer fully, in your own words, what is wrong with this argument? In other words, why doesn’t this all add up? What’s the glaring hole in the reasoning? If I were in an argument with this person right now, what would I say back to point out how they made a sh*tty argument?
3) Pre-phrase: “I’m looking for something that strengthens the argument by...” introducing [sometimes new] info that makes this argument more likely to be true. In other words, imagine that the person making the argument in the stimulus is, say, President Biden, and you are his speech writer. We know he might struggle to make a cohesive argument on his own, so we have to ADD a line to what he wants to say to tie up the loose ends and make the argument follow!
4) Go AC by AC, eliminating if it WEAKENS or DOES NOT EFFECT the argument and keeping AC’s with additional info (even if it seems to be too far out of the scope of the argument at first).
5) Evaluate! Ask yourself if and how the AC actually strengthens the argument. Does it rule out alternative explanations of a phenomena? Does it fill a gap or hole in the reasoning? Does it make the argument more believable or address a key concern you had originally? Remember, unlike Assumption questions, the right answer doesn’t have to make the argument perfect or tie up every single loose end, but it must make the argument stronger and more likely to be accepted!!
could say most strongly supported, BUT is referring to the conclusion that already is in the stimulus as the thing we are trying to support or strengthen; or it says “strengthen” “lends the most credence to” AND ALWAYS will include a little “if true” or “if valid” “if assumed,” etc to imply that we are adding something NEW to the argument, going ONE step further than Flaw
put a scale on your paper of S———N———W and pit each AC against eachother
Common flaws:
past > present
Weaken
1) Identify premises and conclusion.
2) Find the gap or hole: answer fully, in your own words, what is wrong with this argument? In other words, why doesn’t this all add up? What’s the glaring hole in the reasoning? If I were in an argument with this person right now, what would I say back to point out how they made a sh*tty argument?
3) Pre-phrase: “I’m looking for something that weakens the argument by...” introducing [sometimes new] info that makes this argument worse and more likely to be thrown away. Here, I like to imagine the person making the argument is, say, my little brother (I love proving him wrong). What am I going to bring up right away to shoot down his argument? It might be something additional or extra, as long as it really has bearing on how likely we are to accept his conclusion!
4) Go AC by AC, eliminating if it STRENGTHENS or DOES NOT EFFECT the argument and keeping AC’s with additional info (even if it seems to be too far out of the scope of the argument at first).
5) Evaluate! Ask yourself if and how the AC actually weakens the argument. Does it introduce an alternative explanation that’s stronger than the original? Does it emphasize or widen a gap or hole in the reasoning? Does it make the argument less believable or intensify a key concern you had originally? Remember, unlike [the negated AC’s for] Assumption questions, the right answer doesn’t have to absolutely destroy the argument or make it so the argument cannot follow, but it must make the argument weaker and less likely to be accepted!!
“most weakens” or “most seriously calls into question” “most undermines”, ALWAYS will include a little “if true” or “if valid” “if assumed,” etc to imply that we are adding something NEW to the argument, going ONE step further than Flaw
put a scale on your paper of S———N———W and pit each AC against eachother
RRE - resolve reconcile explain
1) Identify premises and conclusion (and what the strange phenomena at hand is... what is contradictory about it?)
2) Find the gap or hole: answer fully, in your own words, what is so far unexplained by this argument? In other words, what isn’t adding up? What are we missing between point A (premises) and Point B (conclusion)?
3) Pre-phrase: “I’m looking for something that resolves the paradox by...” introducing [sometimes new] info that answers the questions in the back of our heads and ties up the loose ends. In this case, you can give yourself stake in the argument by imagining you are a paradox expert hired to come in and figure out what’s missing in our arguments. You’ve been doing this for years and you treat it like a science: ID the paradox, predict what we might need to solve it, and figure out which of the options at hand works! It might be something additional or extra, as long as it really does resolve, reconcile, or explain the seemingly contradictory argument!
4) Go AC by AC, eliminating if it DOES NOT EXPLAIN the argument and keeping AC’s with additional info (even if it seems to be too far out of the scope of the argument at first).
5) Evaluate! Ask yourself if and how the AC actually explains the paradox. Does it introduce third variable that explains a correlation/causation between the first two? Does it close a gap or hole in the reasoning? Does it touch on (does not have to explicitly state, but must show awareness of) both the premises and conclusion? Remember, unlike Assumption questions, the right answer doesn’t have to make the argument absolutely perfect, but it must make the argument make sense and explain the paradox!
which one, if true, most resolves/reconciles/explains the apparent discrepancy/paradox above?
Flaw
1) Identify premises and conclusion.
2) Fully predict your answer to the question by answering in your own words: what is wrong with this argument? In other words, why doesn’t this all add up? What’s the glaring hole in the reasoning? If I were in an argument with this person right now, what would I say back to point out how they made a sh*tty argument?
“most vulnerable to criticism” / “flaw”
Parallel Flaw
1) ID premises, conclusion, and gap/hole in the argument
2) use Lawgic mapping or another visual to help you cement your understanding of the argument
3) Fully predict by putting the flaw into your own words
4) the right AC likely matches the structure (although it doesn’t have to... and order doesn’t matter at all), but MUST match the flaw of the stimulus
which one exhibits flawed (pattern of) reasoning most similar to the stimulus
eliminate ACs that are good arguments BECAUSE the stimulus is a bad argument
Parallel
1) ID premises and conclusion (and whether its a good argument)
2) use Lawgic mapping (more generic forms) or another visual to help you cement your understanding of the argument
3) get the argument structure into your own words
4) match the right AC to the stimulus and start with the strength of the conclusion: ORDER does not matter, TOPIC does not matter, STRUCTURE/FORM is the only thing that matters and we need to match!
@Bailey Luber
eliminate ACs that are bad arguments if the stimulus is a good argument
MBT
1) remember, there may not be a main conclusion!
2) No need to predict for these! Just go into the AC’s thinking “I’m looking for something that ABSOLUTELY 100% HAS TO BE TRUE based on the information above!”
3) Evaluate each AC. First, ask yourself does this have to be true? Does the author absolutely HAVE to agree with this?
4) Put pen to paper and use some sort of visual mapping to keep track of the logic for these! It doesn’t have to be an if → then Lawgic map. Venn diagrams, concentric circles, graphs or charts, etc ALL HELP! Even a silly little sketch. Jot down the spectrum of support (MBT far left, CBT/CBF middle, MBF far right) and place each AC on it to compare. Get creative; your goal is to add another dimension of understanding, NOT to overcomplicate!
“must be true” “properly inferred” “if everything above is true, what else follows?”
MBF
1) Identify premises and conclusion.
2) No need to predict for these! Just go into the AC’s thinking “I’m looking for something that ABSOLUTELY 100% HAS TO BE FALSE based on the information above!”
3) Evaluate each AC. First, ask yourself does this have to be true? Does the author absolutely HAVE to agree with this?
4) Put pen to paper and use some sort of visual mapping to keep track of the logic for these! It doesn’t have to be an if → then Lawgic map. Venn diagrams, concentric circles, graphs or charts, etc ALL HELP! Even a silly little sketch. Jot down the spectrum of support (MBT far left, CBT/CBF middle, MBF far right) and place each AC on it to compare. Get creative; your goal is to add another dimension of understanding, NOT to overcomplicate!
“Each of the following could be true EXCEPT” “must be false”
MOR (method of reasoning)
1) Put into your own words what the method of reasoning employed in the argument is. Ask yourself how the author got from a to b to c. Think: what words are general enough to pick up from this argument and be placed onto another
2) go AC by AC, mapping it back onto the stimulus and making sure there are NO red flags and it’s supported, “too general” is NOT a red flag
“method of reasoning,” “____ makes their argument by ______,” “____ responds to _____ by...” “the argument proceeds by...”
PSAr: Find the rule
1) Identify premises and conclusion.
2) Find the gap or hole: answer fully, in your own words, what is wrong with this argument? These are the best examples of questions where you can picture the correct AC as a missing sentence from the stimulus. What principle or general rule would you add to make it all make sense?
3) Pre-phrase: “I’m looking for something that connects the premises to the conclusion with a general rule!’
4) Go AC by AC, eliminating if it does not tie up the loose ends and keeping AC’s that, if we add to the stimulus, actually have some bearing on the argument and make me more likely to accept it!
5) Evaluate! Ask yourself if and how the AC actually touches on your prediction (might introduce new info but needs to actually affect the argument!)
if you see the word “principle” or “generalization” in the q stem AND implying that the principle you are finding among the ACs will close that gap or hole in the stimulus “which one of the following principles, if valid, helps to justify”
PSAa: Rule Application
1) The stimulus gives us a principle or rule. For easier questions it tends to be one-sided (gives info about one conclusion like “this is a selfish act” or “lying is ok in these circumstances”), but for harder questions these tend to be two sided (”that would be generous if _____ but it is selfish if _____). Your job is to rephrase the principle in your own words!
2) Pre-phrase: “I’m looking for something that concludes something by following the same logic laid out in the principle above...”
4) Go AC by AC, eliminating if the conclusion DOES NOT match what would follow from the stimulus and keeping AC’s that match the conclusion, even if you haven’t evaluated their reasoning yet.
5) Evaluate! Put the AC back up into the stimulus and read it as a conclusion, adding “So,” or “Therefore,” between the principle and AC. If the principle actually supports the conclusion and that principle is ENOUGH to support it on its own, then you’ve got your answer!
it’ll say principle but it’s asking you to apply the principle above (the stim is just a principle) to each AC, and see which one applied the principle correctly
Sufficient Assumptions
1) Identify premises and conclusion.
2) Find the gap or hole: answer fully, in your own words, what is wrong with this argument? In other words, why doesn’t this all add up? What’s the glaring hole in the reasoning? If I were in an argument with this person right now, what would I say back to point out how they made a sh*tty argument?
3) Pre-phrase: “I’m looking for something that ties together _____ and _____ in a way that is enough for the conclusion to follow.” For these, I also ask myself if there is a sentence the author seemed to leave out. I’m trying to ADD a line to tie up the loose ends and make the argument follow!
4) LOOK FOR YOUR PREDICTION IN THE AC’s! These are some of the only question types that your prediction, once you get good at these, should be SPOT-ON as there is only one right answer that is enough or sufficient for the argument to follow! (In contrast, for NA, the right AC could be any one of hundreds of variations to your prediction).
5) If you don’t find your answer right away, go AC by AC and eliminate if it does not mention each of the “loose ends” you are trying to tie together. Keep AC’s that mention both, and then ask yourself what the logical or effective difference between the remaining AC’s are.
5) Evaluate! The right answer, if added to the stimulus as an additional sentence, WILL make the argument essentially perfect or at least tie up the most obvious loose ends.
q says “assumed” AND “if,” “enough,” “sufficient,” “properly drawn” will be in the question stem as well for it to be a Sufficient Assumption
think: I’m looking for the gap/hole and I want to prephrase a “missing sentence” that the author should have said out loud that is enough on its own for the conclusion to follow
Necessary Assumption
1) Identify premises and conclusion.
2) Predict your answer to the question by answering in your own words: what is wrong with this argument? You can ask any of the questions we ask ourselves to ID the flaw, but how I like to conceptualize NA (and other assumption) questions specifically is by picturing a missing sentence. What did the author conveniently leave out of their reasoning? What am I left waiting to hear so that the argument ties up nicely?
3) Keep your prediction in mind and evaluate each AC. First, ask yourself does this have to be true? Does the author absolutely HAVE to agree with this?
4) To check your answer or deliberate between AC’s, NEGATE (add a “not”) the AC. If we re-evaluate the argument with the negated version of the CORRECT AC added in, there will be ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the conclusion will follow. The correct AC, when negated, completely destroys the argument.
^^^ YOU CAN ALWAYS use the negation technique for NA questions; there aren’t any NA questions that this DOESN’T work for! I just recommend to do it last instead of first to save time and confusion :) But if it works better for you to do it first, go for it!
“The argument relies on assuming which one of the following?”
“The argument depends on the assumption that...”
“Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?”
Principle
1) ID Premises and Conclusion
2) Identify principle (more general premise/rule) in your own words (decide which part of stimulus is the principle)
3) Hunt for Principle in the ACs
4) Do NOT eliminate for being “too general” (think... we want an AC that constitutes an umbrella that the Principle in the stimulus falls under)
PAI: point at issue (agree or disagree)
1) Am I being asked to find what they agree on? Or disagree? (There will be two speakers no matter what)
2) Agree: put into my own words what both speakers agree on (could be a C, could be a P) and hunt among ACs for a similar thing
2) Disagree: Put into own words what they disagree on (what does A think that is different and doesn’t vibe with what B thinks) and hunt
3) TEST your AC for Agree by reading AC, read Person 1, ask yourself would they agree? If yes, read AC again, read person 2, ask if they would agree? If yes to both, you are right!
3) TEST your AC for Disagree by reading AC, read Person 1, ask yourself what would they say to this? If yes, read AC again, read person 2, ask what would they think? If different, you are right!
There are no rows in this table
18
Count
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.