LSAT Short Arguments - How to ID + Process Structure Based Qs: Main Point, Method of Arg, Function, Parallel Reasoning

Question 1

What are the 4 types of Short Argument - Structure Based Questions?

Answer 1

Main Point

Method of Argument

Function

Parallel Reasoning

Most Moms Flip Pancakes Rapidly

Question 2

“main point…”

“the conclusion…”

“stmt the argument is attempting to prove…”

“the point the argument tries to establish…”

“most accurately expresses the conclusion of…”

Answer 2

Structure Based - Main Point

Process

1. Read Question Stem
2. Ignore Evidence!
3. Most important: IDENTIFY CONCLUSION (look for conclusion ID words, there will be multiple distracting possible conclusions) BEWARE traditional conclusion IDs like Hence, Therefore, Thus, So, Since, Because in a Main Pt Question. In a Main Point Q, the best conclusion IDs are contrast words.
4. Predict Answer

Go to ACs: Correct Answer will RESTATE the CONCLUSION using different phrasing.

Wrong Answer will restate EVIDENCE or combine evidence and conclusion. Wrong Answer, when there is anti-conclusion work, will overstate or polar opposite. Be leery of ACs that just state evidence.

Note: Hence, Therefore, Thus, So, Since, Because in a Main Point Q, are 66% conclusion MIS IDs/33% conclusion ID, but “after all” or “for” is 100% evidence ID

Question 3

the argument proceeds by...,

the author attempts to…by

method of argument…,

method of reasoning…,

argumentative strategy/technique…,

the author is arguing that…
which of the following describes the strategy…

(two person convo) “Ortiz criticizes Merton’s argument by…”

Answer 3

Structure Based - Method of Argument

(basically what does the ARGUMENT do??? without assumption analysis). Note that assumption based Qs require deep assumption analysis. Meth questions require zero assumption analysis. So you should feel the difference between Meth and ABQ.

Process - ACs can give you a lot of work

1. Read Question Stem
2. ID the evidence (as opposed to MP, where you ignore ev)
3. Most important: IDENTIFY CONCLUSION (look for conclusion ID words)
4. Do not try to predict

Tricky possibility that METH Q focuses more narrowly than usual – if the Q Stem says smthg like “most accurately describes A TECHNIQUE…” it is not referring to the argument as a whole. The correct AC may just be a description of a key part of the evidence!”

Go to ACs: Correct Answer will DESCRIBE the REASONING, usually using vague language to refer to concrete ideas in argument. Use PoE. Beware “new stuff” in ACs and make sure AC selected corresponds tightly to reasoning in Argument

Wrong Answer will use terms or ideas that do NOT correspond to terms or ideas in argument

Tip: notice the “by” or similar flow words in ACs to separate evidence and conclusion. If an AC does not have a flow word in MoA then it may not be capturing the whole conclusion and evidence of main argument. But be sure the Q stem is asking for the whole arg and not just a “technique”

Question 4

• “function…” (*object statement i.e. excerpt from argument)
• “role…”*
• “figures in the argument…”*
• “purpose…”*
• “figures in the above reasoning…”*
• “plays which of the following roles…”*

Answer 4

Short Argument - Structure Based - Function (aka glorified Main Point)

Process summary: ID OS, find Conc, relate the 2: HEAVY PREMIUM on finding conclusion and RELATING it to OS

TIP: if your OS is evidence, there may be an incorrect AC that states “a premise in support of XXXX” but XXX is an inaccurate descrip of the Conclusion. Make sure the Conclusion is described correctly in AC!

1. Read Question Stem - ID Object Statement in Question Stem
2. ID the evidence (as opposed to Structure Based-Main Point where you ignore ev)
3. Most important: IDENTIFY CONCLUSION (look for conclusion ID words)
4. Look again at Object Stmt...is it:
   
   • the Conclusion (if so go to AC that describes OS as Conclusion)?
   • Or is it the Evidence (if so look for AC that describes OS as evidence)?
   • Or is OS Anti-Conclusion, Counter Evidence, Bckgrd Info, Intermediate Conclusion that supports Main Conclusion, Etc?

Go to ACs: Correct Answer will correctly describe “category” of OS as it relates to the Conclusion, usually using vague language to refer to concrete ideas in argument. Use PoE. Beware “new stuff” in ACs and make sure AC selected corresponds tightly to reasoning in Argument

Wrong Answer will use terms or ideas that do NOT correspond to terms or ideas in argument

Question 5

“reasoning most similar..to above.”

“parallel reasoning…”

“reasoning in the argument is most closely paralleled…”

note that “which one of the following most closely parallels the *questionable* reasoning above…” is actually a PARALLEL FLAW q, not parallel reasoning, due to the *questionable*

Answer 5

Structure Based - Parallel Reasoning

(usually more time consuming than other Qs but do not need to do argument analysis or find assumptions)

• ***Note: Key is Distinctive Elements, e.g.*
• if-then stmts*
• causality*
• comparisons*
• recommendations*
• superlatives*
• percentages words*
• qualifiers,*
• …hundreds more.****

Process - often requires symbolization for PR Qs (especially for SHORTER main arguments)

Read Question Stem

1. First ID the conclusion in main argument, identify DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS (aka what needs proof) of that conclusion. You have not even looked at evidence! Immediately proceed to ACs, eliminate ACs w/ conclusions that do not have those same DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS (e.g. if you see causal word “yield” in main arg conclusion, you need a “make” or other VoC in correct AC conclusion) (probably 2 or 3 eliminated)
2. ID the evidence in argument, identify DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS of the evidence. Proceed to ACs, eliminate ACs w/ evidence that do not have the same distinctive elements

**note if the arg has more than one piece of evidence, or evidence and counterevidence, consider the RELP between the pieces of evidence and counterevidence to in itself be a DISTINCTIVE ELEMENT**

Might see perfect arguments (flawless) here!

**Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning Qs can have multiple easy kills: e.g. if you main arg has 2 if-then stmts with absolute language in Evidence, and 1 if-then stmts with absolute language in Conclusion…you can IMMEDIATELY kill ACs without exactly 2 if-then in E and 1 if-then in C….Want same #**… but to differentiate between remaining 2 or 3 ACs you may need to SYMBOLIZE ACs

**Note order of AC’s C and E does not matter!

**shorter ones more likely to symbolize

**How closely must the Distinctive Elements match? Note that a Parallel Reasoning correct AC will look for pretty strict matching (e.g. 51% word in Arg Evidence needs 51% counterpart in AC Evidence) between the Distinctive Elements evidence and conclusion in AC and argument. It is focusing on the Reasoning (i.e. overall argument) not a Flaw.

But Parallel Flaw is more likely to allow wiggle room between the Distinctive Elements, i.e. 51% word in Arg Evidence may be matched by 100% word in AC evidence. Less parallelness needed since focus is on FLAW.**

*note: when checking to see if an AC matches up, the order of elements within an or stmt doesn’t matter, but what serves as trigger and result of course does matter*