Test your basic knowledge |

LSAT Logical Reasoning Clues

Instructions:
  • Answer 50 questions in 15 minutes.
  • If you are not ready to take this test, you can study here.
  • Match each statement with the correct term.
  • Don't refresh. All questions and answers are randomly picked and ordered every time you load a test.

This is a study tool. The 3 wrong answers for each question are randomly chosen from answers to other questions. So, you might find at times the answers obvious, but you will see it re-enforces your understanding as you take the test each time.
1. 1. Whatever term is modified by 'unless' - 'except' - 'until' or 'without' becomes the necessary condition 2. The remaining term is negated and becomes the sufficient condition.






2. Takes a small number of intstances and treats those instances as if they support a broad - sweeping conclusion. Often appears as an incorrect answer.n






3. At least on of the two - possibly both.

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/html/basicversity.com/show_quiz.php on line 183


4. Mis-assessing the force of evidence is a frequent error committed by LSAT authors 1. Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is false 2. lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove that position is true 3. some evide






5. They h ave failed to fully and accurately identify the conclusion of the argument. If a conclusion is present - you MUST identify it prior to proceeding on to the question stem.






6. 1. Watch for answers starting with the phrase 'at least one' or 'at least some'. When an assumption answer choice starts with one of these phrases it is usually right. But ALWAYS verify with A.N.T. 2. Avoid answers that claim an idea was the most imp






7. To logically negate a conditional statement - negate the necessary condition. Example: neither...nor becomes either...or.






8. 1. if you recognize the form of reasoning used in the stimulus (causal - conditional - etc.) immediately attack the answers and search for the answer with similar reasoning (analogy - circular reasoning) 2. The Conclusion - match the conclusions - to






9. Whenever you identify a causal relationship in the conclusion of an LSAT problem - immediately prepare to either weaken or strengthen the argument. Tasks for Weaken questions...must always identify a causal conclusion. Then ask if there relationship






10. Allows you to decide between contenders or to confirm that the answer you have chosen is correct. 1. Logically negate the answer choices under consideration. Usually consists of taking a 'not' out of a sentence or putting a 'not' in a sentence. 2. Th






11. Premises + answer choice = conclusion When approaching answers - separate them into winners and losers - then apply the justify formula.






12. As an argument progresses - the author must use each term in a constant - coherent fashion. using a term in different ways is inherently confusing and undermines the integrity of the argument. n






13. Authors misuses info to such a degree that they fail to provide any info to support their conclusion or they provide info that is irrelevant to their conclusion. n






14. Take the statements under consideration and place them in an arrangement that forces once to be the conclusion and the other(s) to be the premise (s). Use premise and conclusion indicators to achieve this end. Once the pieces are arranged - determine






15. Thus - therefore - hence - consequently - as a result - so - accordingly - clearly - must be that - shows that - conclude that - follows that - for this reason.






16. If the stimulus contains an argument - determine whether the argument is strong or weak.






17. 1. Stimulus will contain an argument. Must isolate and identify and assess the premises and the conclusion. 2. Focus on the conclusion. Almost all correct Weaken answers impact the conclusion. 3. The info in the stimulus is suspect. There are often r






18. Argument Part - If you do see the main conclusion at the end of a Method-AP problem - be prepared to answer a question about a part of the arguement other than the conclusion.n






19. Then - only - only if - must - required - unless - except - until - without.






20. Because - since - for - for example - for the reason that - in that - given that - as indicated by - due to - owing to - this can be seen from - we know this by.






21. Supporter - the traditional linking role - where an assumption connects pieces of the argument. (often new or rogue pieces) They also can close gaps. Ex: All male citizens of athens had the right to vote. Therefore - Socrates had the right to vote in






22. Refer to the amount or quantity in the relationship. Examples: (do not need to memorize) all - every - most - many - several - sole - only - not all - none - few.






23. Think about the structure of the argument before examining the answer choices. Do not expect to see the exact prephrase - there are too many variations. Make an abstract prephrase then examine each answer to see if it paraphrases the prephrase.n






24. Assumes that only 2 courses of action are available when there may be others. n






25. Involves judgements made about groups and parts of a group. an error or composition occurs when the author attributes a characteristic of part of the group to the group as a whole or to each member of the group Error of division - author attributes c






26. Introduce something that actually contains an idea that is counter to the argument. By raising opposition - the author can minimize the damage that would be done by the objection if it were raised elsewhere. but yet - however - on the other hand - ad






27. Prephrase: after reading the question stem - take a moment to mentally formulate your answer to the question stem.






28. 1. Increasing percentages automatically lead to increasing numbers. This is not necessarily true because the overall size of the group could get smaller. 2. Decreasing percentages automatically lead to decreasing numbers 3. Increasing numbers automat






29. 1. Appeal to authority - uses the opinion of an authority in an attempt to persuade the reader. The flaw is that the authority may not have relevant knowledge or all of the info regarding the situation - to there may be a difference of opinion among






30. Occurs when an author makes conflicting statements. n






31. Read closely and know precisely what the author said. DO NOT GENERALIZE!.






32. 1. assuming a causal relationship on the basis of the sequence of events 2. assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation exists 3. failure to consider an alternate cause for the effect or an alternate cause for both the cause and the effect






33. The makers of the LSAT do not think that there are multiple causes for the same effect. When an LSAT speaker concludes that one occurance caused another - that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and th






34. Percent - proportion - fraction - ratio - incidence - likelihood - probability - segment - share. n






35. 1. Incomplete info. The author fails to consider all of the possibilities or relies upon evidence that is incomplete. This flaw can be attacked by bringing up new possibilities or info. 2. Improper comparison. The author attempts to compare two or mo






36. Caused by because of responsible for reason for leads to induced by promoted by determined by produced by product of played a role in was a factor in is an effect of.






37. Used to introduce other premises that support the conclusion but are sometimes non-essential to the conclusion furthermore - moreover - besides - in addition - whats more - after all.

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/html/basicversity.com/show_quiz.php on line 183


38. Always ask: Do the given facts support the conclusion? Do the premises strongly suggest that the conclusion would be true? Does the conclusion feel like an inevitable result of the premises? Or Does the conclusion go beyond the scope of the info in t






39. To weaken a conditional conclusion - attack the necessary condition by showing that the necessary condition does not need to occur in order for the sufficient condition to occur. With a combo of a conditional reasoning stimulus and a weaken question






40. Immediately look for the repeat or contrapositive in the answer choices. Avoid mistaken reversals and mistaken negations.






41. An event or circumstance whose occurrence is required in order for a sufficient condition to occur.






42. Carefully read and identify the question stem. DO NOT assume that certain words are automatically associated with certain questions types.






43. 1. The info in the stimulus is suspect. There are often reasoning errors present and depending on the question - you will help shore up the argument in some way. 2. The answer choices are accepted as given - even if they include 'new' info. Your task






44. Stimulus (affected or determined)--/-> answer choices (accepted) Negative sign on the arrow reflects attacking or hurting the argument (weaken).






45. Stimulus (affected or determined) ---> answer choices (accepted) AKA: Help Family assumption - justify the conclusion - strengthen/support - resolve the paradox.






46. If the stimulus contains an argument - identify the conclusion. If the stimulus contains a fact set - examine each fact.






47. A. Eliminate any alternate causes for the stated effect. B. Show that when the cause occurs - the effect occurs. C. Show that when the cause does not occur - the effect does not occur. D. Eliminate the possility that the stated relationship is revers






48. They can be in the premises or conclusion. If they are in the conclusion the argument is flawed. Classic mistaken cause and effect reasoning refers to occurences when a causal assertion is made in the conclusion or the conclusion presumes a causal re






49. Mistaken negation and reversal exp: taking the non-existence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist' (MN) 'mistakes being sufficient to justify punishment for being required to justify it' (MR)n






50. If - when - whenever - every - all - any - people who - in order to.