Sum Flashcards
(37 cards)
Sufficient
“Enough”, Trigger, don’t need additional info to know the other part is true
Keywords:
All
Any (time, place, anybody, etc.)
Every (time, place, everybody, etc.)
Whenever
Each
None
Never
Not
No one
The only
Necessary
“Required”, Result, required when the sufficient term is there
Keywords:
Only
Only if
AND (Formal Logic)
Need both terms for conditions to be relevant/fufilled
OR (Formal Logic)
Need at least one of the terms. Not mutually exclusive unless told.
If, But Only If (Formal Logic)
Biconditional. Means neither or both.
Contrapositives
Reverse terms, then negate them both. Must also consider “or” and “and”. (Switch when you reverse)
Logical Reasoning Steps
- Identify question type
- Untangle the stimulus (conclusion, evidence)
- Predict the correct answer
- Evaluate answer choices
LR Wrong Answer Types
Outside the Scope
Irrelevant Comparison
Extreme
Distortion
180
Faulty Use of Detail
(LR - Argument) Question Types
Explicit recognition of arguments:
Main Point
Role of a Statement
Method of Argument
Point at Issue
Parallel Reasoning
Strengthen/Weaken
Flaw
(LR - Argument) Main Point Q
Identifying/paraphrasing the conclusion
Steps:
1. Identify Question Stem
2. Untangle stimulus to locate conclusion
3. Paraphrase conclusion and use as a prediction
4. Evaluate answer choices
One Sentence Test
For main point. If there are no keywords, ask what is the author’s point and what are they offering to support it?
Conclusion Keywords
(don’t rely on too much, can be a red herring):
Therefore
Hence
Thus
Consequently
As a result
So
It follows that
When it is an assertion another position is incorrect:
Some believe
_____ contend(s)
It has been proposed
…but
…however
…this is incorrect
Types of Conclusions
Value judgements
If/then
Prediction
Comparison
Assertion of Fact
Recommendation
Evidence Keywords
Because
After all
For
Since
(LR - Argument) Role of a Statement Q
Steps:
0. Identify statement from stimulus as the conclusion, evidence, background info, etc.
1. Identify + paraphrase stimulus parts
2. Formulate prediction
Wrong choices will describe other parts of the argument or distort it.
(LR - Argument) Point at Issue Q
Will always have a dialogue word in the stimulus (“disagree about, point at issue is __”)
Both speakers have arguments and disagree on a point of it
The CORRECT answer paraphrases the point of disagreement
Very RARELY will the q be about a statement the authors agree on
Wrong Answers:
1. A point only 1 speaker has an opinion about
2. Outside the scope of both
3. A point they both agree on
Types: Share conclusion, disagree on evidence or vice versa
(LR - Argument) Method of Argument Q
Types:
Argument by analogy - parallels between 2 similar but unrelated situations
Use of examples - specific cases to justify generalization
Use of counterexamples - discredit opponent by citing a situation where their conclusion is invalid
Appeal to authority - citing an expert/authority
Eliminating alternatives - lists possibilities and discredits all but 1
Ad Hominem attack - attacking opponent’s credibility not argument
Means/Requirement - saying something is needed for a result
Question Stems:
“The argument in the argument proceeds by…”
“Which of the following describes the argumentative strategy”
Right choice will match description of strategy
Wrong choice will describe arguments not used by the author or distorts.
(LR - Argument) Parallel Reasoning
Question Stems:
“Most parallel to” “Most similar to” “Most like”
Correct answer is similar in structure. Same kind of evidence for same kind of conclusion.
Steps:
1. Identify + characterize conclusion
2. Eliminate answers that do not contain same conclusion type
3. Pay attention to if the conclusion is positive or negative + level of certainty
4. If more than 1 answer choice remains, then analyze evidence and match
LR - Assumption Family Questions
Contains an unstated premise that connects the evidence to the conclusion
Argument Structure Types:
1) Mismatched Concepts MMC
2) Overlooked Possibilities OP
Question Types?
- Sufficient Assumption
- Necessary Assumption
(LR - Assumption) Mismatched Concepts Argument
How to tell?
- Terms/concepts appear unrelated
- New term/concept unrelated to the evidence appears in the conclusion
CAN ONLY USE WHAT IS WRITTEN EXPLICITLY
Strategy
1) Separate concepts in evidence from concepts in conclusion
2) Identify mismatched concepts that the author assumes are somehow unrelated
3) Find the assumption by logically relating the mismatched concepts
Common Types:
Alike/equivalent
Mutually exclusive (incompatible concepts)
One term is needed for the other
One term represents another
Not X because Y. Y is necessary for X.
Draws a conclusion from a sample.
Formal Logic in MMC
Use only to figure out directionality of the concepts. Don’t need to do every time.
(LR - Assumption) Overlooked Possibilities Argument
Identify:
- Terms in evidence are related to the conclusion
- Conclusion is TOO strong/extreme
- Author has failed to consider possible objections to the conclusion
Strategy
1) Focus on the conclusion
2) Determine possible objections to it
3) Understand the assumption in NEGATIVE TERMS (the author assumes assumptions are not present)
Common Patterns
- No other explanation/reason/outcome (alternative) [Most Common]
- Confusing necessity with sufficiency
- Assuming no other advantages and disadvantages with a conclusion
- Assuming that something can occur, will occur. (Possibility = certainty)
- Correlation = Causation (flaw/strengthen/weaken q’s)
Objections
- Alternate cause
- Reversed situation
- Coincidence
(LR - Assumption) Sufficient Assumption Q
When added to evidence, guarantees conclusion is true
Uses terms like:
“If assumed” “Conclusion follows logically” “Allows the conclusion to be drawn”
But NOT: “Needs, requires, depends”
Overwhelmingly MMC w/ formal logic
OP is rarer
(LR - Assumption) Necessary Assumption Q
Uses terms like:
“Depends” “Require” “Is necessary”
Equally likely to be MMC or OP
Look for an essential/required assumption either way.
Test validity of answers by denying them. [Denial Test]
