LSAT Short Argument Pick and Go opportunities, (expect 5 or more per section!) and fast easy kills Flashcards
Quick Pick and Go w/ Alt Explanation AC: If a Conclusion in an arg has causal language (i.e. the C arrow) XX –c–> YY, 85% of the time you have a Corr-Caus flaw! (not the case with “not the cause” aka crossed out C arrow language)
And if that Corr-Caus flaw is with Assumption Based Q, you can…
- Assumption - Weaken Q*: PICK AND GO AC with _Alt Explanatio_n (remember Heavy Metal Antibiotics q), also possible Reverse Causality
- Flaw Q*: Identify Header Type (Weaken, Necessary, or sometimes no header, just a generic description of the Corr-Caus flaw) and PICK AND GO AC
Quick Pick and Go: Flow Language in AC w/ near perfect E and C matches to argument!
If you see Flow Langauge (language that indicates E and C) in an AC, and the E and C are near perfect matches to the E and C in the argument assumption, pick and go!
See Flow Words flashcard for examples
Quick Pick and Go
Negation tests! May be able to do quick pick and go on all Ass-Nec
Also ask yourself DO I NEED TO KNOW for all Ass-Nec
Do Negation Tests on all Ass-Nec
In Ass-Nec, if you do negation test and AC kills the argument, pick and go
(but of course to see if it kills it you need to have written the orginal argument correctly)
example: 62.2.15 Collette
Argument = CNovel –> Poetic CMEC –> Raise IMQ –> ~ indiff IMQ
Answer choice B) A novel that poetically condenses a major emotional crisis does not have to be indifferent to the important moral questions raised by that crisis.
Negation test, does this kill the argument? A novel that poetically condenses a major emotional crisis DOES have to be indifferent to the important moral questions raised by that crisis
YES, it KILLS the argument so pick n go B
Quick Pick and Go
Main Point Question - fly thru misdirections!
Remember 66% - 85% of the following will be misidentifiers of the conclusion in a MAIN POINT Q: hence therefore thus since so because. Look at what supports what! Make sure AC is overall conclusion, not intermediate conclusions
30 seconds
Quick Pick and Go - Perfect Match
If you come across an AC to Assumption Based Q (esp. Suf, Nec, Strength, and RCON type Qs) with explicit Evidence and Conclusion elements in AC that perfectly match E and C in argument, you have perfect assumption, PICK AND GO!
It means that if an AC has evidence matching the main argument evidence, and conclusion matching the main argument conclusion, you indeed have an implicit PERFECT ASSUMPTION and know it is the correct AC
Quick Kill: When the AC suggests a TRIGGER than is not a trigger in any part of the argument…
e.g. AC says: “if X –> Y” and X is not a trigger anywhere in the arg (nor ~X in a result, in which case it is a trigger via contrapositiving) then kill it.
Kill that AC immediately
Quick Kill: when you have a Parallel Flaw or Parallel Reasoning question, you can kill ACs fast that don’t have the same Distinctive Elements as the argument
remember “parallel” Q types are looking for near exact matches to Distinctive Elements, not strenghtening, not weakening etc
Example (see attached) kill A and C because they use SOME in their conclusions where argument conclusion used ALL. Kill E becuase it uses MOST in the evidence where argument evidence used NO.
If/Then stmts
Causality
Comparisons
Recommendations
Strong Language concepts: superlatives, 1% words, 51% words, most, all, some (i.e. if you have most in E, all in C in the argument, strike out any ACs that don’t have most in E and C in argument)
qualifiers: regular qualifier (adjective) or also conditional qualifier would be “when….” or “if….”
In a Main Point Q of a short argument, once you identify the conclusion in the argument…
Sometimes there will be only one AC that MATCHES the strong-weak language of the arg.
E.g. if the conclusion has “probably” and only one AC has “probably” then pick and go
In a Function question of a Short Argument, if the ACs ALL have the structure “is a premise of” or “is supporting” xxxx
Pick the one that ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE CONCLUSION xxxx of the arg and go
In a Parallel Reasoning (structure) question of a short argument, if the Conclusion of the argument contains easy to recognize Distinctive Elements such as Causality, an If-Then, or Percentage words
Quick Kill of ACs whose conclusion don’t contain the same thing
Concept shift assumption i.e. if the campus is beautiful, it is a great learning environment
Quick Kills: Note correct AC’s if stmt should match if stmt in concept shift assumption. So if you don’t see something about “campus is beautiful” in AC, kill it.
This is because right AC will match trigger and result.
TICNIE must be in AC for AC to be correct in Concept Shift
Assuming the Trigger – when you see only one AC that actually addresses the components of the trigger
Example, you have supported Trigger here where Guilty of Copyright Infringment is the Result from Evidence present in the Conclusion, so that fact reveals the argument assumes that Knowingly Aided Copyright Infringement is indeed activated.
When you look at AC (E) you see that is the only choice with the terms Knowingly Aided Copyright Infringe(r)
Pick and go. It is the only AC addressing the assumed trigger.
Notice slight shift in qualifiers in an otherwise complex argument?
E.g. the difference between “reduce stress” and “very high stress” in PT 76.2.12 Gingko made the correct AC be B. So keep an eye out for subtle shifts in similar terms via qualifiers!
Or the difference between “intend pleasure” vs “give pleasure” in PT 76.2.24
Or the difference between “reduce stress” and “intense stress” in PT 76.3.12 lavender
May be worth to pick the AC that addresses that slight shift, if that is the only AC that does so
If you have an AC with a superlative (the BEST, the TALLEST, etc)…
you better have more than one thing in the prompt from which to choose…i.e. if the prompt is discussing a situation and does not refer to other similar situations or choices, THE BEST in the AC would make no sense…
Quick way to ID if it is Assume the Trigger OR Confusion of Sufficient and Necessary
Think it may be AtT or CSN?
First it must have one or more IF-THEN stmts in EVIDENCE. Critical: See where the TriggerEvidence and Result Evidence land in the Conclusion!
Assume the Trigger will simply have the RESULT from EVIDENCE as being a fact in the CONCLUSION, with no evidence of Trigger in Evidence being activated. It’s like Ignoring the Trigger
CSN will have one of 3 ways
- Going against arrows: j(1a) Trigger in Evidence becomes Result in Conclusion, or (1b) Result in Evidence becomes Trigger in Conclusion
- Negating without Flipping: Result in Evidence just becomes ~Result in Conclusion
