LSAT Logical Reasoning: Learning to Analyze and Evaluate Arguments

Argument

A set of statements where some premises support a conclusion.

Premises

Reasons offered to support a conclusion in an argument.

Conclusion

The main claim that the author is trying to get you to accept.

Common conclusion indicators

Words such as 'therefore,' 'thus,' 'hence' indicate conclusions.

Common premise indicators

Words such as 'because,' 'since,' 'for' indicate premises.

Subconclusion

A claim that supports the main conclusion but is itself supported by earlier premises.

Background statements

Information included that does not serve as either premise or conclusion.

Find something true

A task type in LSAT logic that requires identifying statements based on the stimulus.

Find what the argument needs

Necessary Assumption or Sufficient Assumption type tasks in LSAT.

Evaluate the argument

Assessing the impact of additional information on the argument's conclusion.

Weakening an argument

Providing information that lowers the credibility of the conclusion.

Causal claim

A statement asserting that one thing causes another.

Counterexample

An example that contradicts a generalization, weakening its validity.

Assumption

An unstated belief that must be true for the argument to hold.

Necessary Assumption

A premise that must be true for the argument to be valid.

Sufficient Assumption

Additional support that guarantees the conclusion if true.

Negation Test

Method to identify necessary assumptions by negating answers.

Strengthening evidence

Information that bolsters the support for the conclusion.

Flaw in reasoning

An error in logic that compromises the argument's validity.

Method of Reasoning

A description of how an argument's reasoning proceeds.

Role of a statement

The function a particular statement serves in an argument.

Parallel Reasoning

Finding an answer that has the same logical structure as the stimulus.

Principle-Justify

A question type seeking a principle that supports the argument.

Resolve/Explain

A type of question seeking a resolution for contradictory facts.

Evaluate question

A question type asking what information would help assess the argument's validity.

Statistical traps

Logical errors arising from misinterpreting numerical data.

Out of scope

An incorrect answer choice that introduces unrelated issues.

Common answer choice traps

Frequent logical pitfalls to avoid in LSAT answer choices.

Discipline in reasoning

A consistent workflow used to analyze and answer LSAT questions.

Correlation vs. causation

The distinction between events occurring together and one causing the other.

Quantifiers

Terms like 'some,' 'all,' and 'most' that clarify the scope of claims.

Causal reasoning

Linking an effect directly to a cause, often erroneously.

Sampling flaws

Errors resulting from biased samples in surveys or studies.

Equivocation

Using a key term with different meanings in an argument.

Normative leaps

Assuming a prescriptive conclusion from a descriptive premise.

Pooling statistics

Combining different groups' data without valid justification.

Frequency vs. base rate

The need to consider group size when interpreting statistical data.

Majority fallacy

Assuming majority opinions reflect universal truths.

Terminology of logic

Specific language used in logic that indicates structure.

Absence of proof fallacy

Mistaking lack of evidence for evidence of absence.

Relevance fallacy

Attacking a topic unrelated to the main argument.

Comparative analysis

Assessing relationships between different data sets.

Argument form analysis

Determining the logical structure of arguments.

Critiquing assumptions

Evaluating the validity of unstated beliefs in arguments.

Argument scope adjustment

Recognizing shifts in the group or context of claims.

Critical reasoning

The process of analyzing and evaluating arguments.

Overall coherence

The logical consistency and clarity of an argument.

Logical fallacies

Common errors in reasoning that undermine arguments.

Conditional structure

The relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions in logic.

Inference structure

The logical patterns derived from premises leading to conclusions.

Argument validity

The degree to which conclusions logically follow premises.

Strengthen/Weaken dynamic

The interaction of arguments where the strength of claims can change based on evidence.