The word “proposition” or “precept” can be used in place of “principle.”
Be careful of question stemsusing the word “conform.” Sometimes they ask if the
stimulus conforms (which is a Strengthen-PR question) but other times they ask if the answer choice conforms (which is generally a Must-PR question).
Principle questions (PR) are not a separate question type but are instead an
“overlay” that appears in a variety of question types. For example, there are
Strengthen Principle questions (Strengthen-PR), Justify Principle questions
(Justify-PR), and Cannot Be True Principle questions (Cannot-PR), among
others. In a question stem, the key indicator that the Principle concept is present
is the word “principle.” Here are several examples of Principle question stems:
“Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the
principle above?” (Must-PR)
“Which one of the following judgments best illustrates the principle
illustrated by the argument above?” (Must-PR)
“The principle above, if established, would justify which one of the
following judgments?” (Must-PR)
“Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the
reasoning above?” (Strengthen-PR)
“The information above most closely conforms to which one of the
following principles?” (Strengthen-PR)
“Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle
underlying the argumentation above?” (Justify-PR)
“Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the
columnist’s conclusion EXCEPT:” (Cannot-PR)
A principle is a broad rule that specifies what actions or judgments are correct in
certain situations. For example, “Some companies are profitable” is not a
principle because no rule is involved and no judgment can be drawn from the
statement. “All companies should strive to be profitable” is a principle, and one
that can be applied to any company.
The degree of generality of principles can vary considerably, and some are
much narrower than others. For example, “Children at Smith Elementary
School must wear uniforms” is a principle restricted to children attending Smith.
The principle does not apply to a child attending a different school. On the other
hand, the principle “Any person of voting age has an obligation to vote” applies
to a large number of people regardless of background, education, wealth, etc.
Since a principle is by definition a broad rule (usually conditional in nature), the
presence of the Principle indicator serves to broaden the scope of the question.
The question becomes more abstract, and you must analyze the problem to
identify the underlying relationships. Functionally, you must take a broad,
global proposition and apply it in a specific manner, either to the answer choices
(as in a Must or Parallel question) or to the stimulus (as in a Strengthen or
Justify question).
Because principles must retain broad applicability and must typically meet a condition
to apply, they are often conditional statements. However, there are exceptions,
such as with causal principles.
Here is a brief analysis of how this process affects the two
question types most likely to appear with a Principle designation:
1. Must Be True Principle Questions
In these questions you must use the principle presented in the stimulus
and then apply it to the situation in each answer choice (one principle
applied to five situations). Although these are Must Be True questions,
the presence of the principle designation broadens the question, and the
answer choice can address a scenario not specifically included in the
stimulus; your job is to find the answer that follows from the application
of the principle. If an answer does not match the principle, it is incorrect.
Since many, if not all, of the principles in these stimuli are conditional,
you will often be able to identify that reasoning and make a quick
diagram. If you cannot clearly identify the conditional nature of the
principle, create an abstraction of the stimulus similar to one you would
create in a Parallel Reasoning question. This approach can be useful
since it creates an accurate representation of the principle.
The classification of these questions can sometimes be difficult for
students since the relation of the stimulus to the answer choices is so
similar to Parallel Reasoning questions (each answer often features a
scenario and topic that is entirely different from that in the stimulus).
Remember, both Parallel Reasoning and Must Be True questions are in
the First Question Family, and they share many of the same
characteristics. In the final analysis, when considering the answer
choices, ask yourself, “Does this answer match the attributes of the
principle in the stimulus?”
Now, let us look at an example of this type of question and see how the
addition of the Principle concept affects the problem.
Please take a moment to complete the following question:
1. To act responsibly in one’s professional capacity, one
must act on the basis of information that one has
made a reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and
complete.
Which one of the following judgments most closely
conforms to the principle cited above?
(A) Peggy acted responsibly in ordering new
computers for the school last year because
they turned out to be needed due to an
unexpected increase in enrollment this year.
(B) Mary acted responsibly in firing John, for she
first examined the details of his work record
and listened to negative reports from some of
his supervisors and coworkers.
(C) Toril did not act responsibly in investing the
company’s money in Twicycled Ink, for,
though the investment yielded a large return,
she had not investigated the risks associated
with that investment.
(D) Conchita did not act responsibly in hiring
Helmer to do the company’s bookkeeping
because Helmer made a mistake that cost the
company a lot of money, though he had
never been known to make such a mistake in
the past.
(E) Jennifer did not act responsibly in deciding
where to go on her vacation because, instead
of carefully weighing her options, she waited
until the last minute and decided on impulse.
The first thing students notice about this question is its length. Like
Parallel reasoning questions, Principle questions are often quite lengthy,
and this is part of the reason they are challenging.
In this instance the principle appears in the stimulus, and you are
required to find the answer choice that most closely follows the
principle. By comparing the principle with each answer choice, you can
find the answer that best meets the stipulations of the principle.
As you read the stimulus, you should hone in on the conditional nature
of the principle (“one must act...”):
AR = act responsibly in one’s professional capacity
ABI = must act on the basis of information that one has made a
reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and complete.
AR---------> ABI
Let’s take a moment to review the conclusions that can be drawn when
you are given a simple conditional statement and additional information:
What you can conclude
1. If the sufficient condition is met in one of the scenarios in the
answer choice, then it can be concluded that the necessary
condition has occurred.
A simple conditional statement combined with a premise
indicating that the sufficient condition has occurred allows
the conclusion that the necessary condition will occur. This
is the essence of the Repeat conditional argument form.
2. If the necessary condition is not met in one of the scenarios
in the answer choice, then it can be concluded that the
sufficient condition has not occurred.
A simple conditional statement combined with a premise
indicating that the necessary condition has not occurred
allows the conclusion that the sufficient condition will not
occur. This is the essence of the contrapositive argument
form.
The two conclusions above are the most likely to appear in any given
Principle question. The following two conclusions can also be drawn,
but they appear less frequently than the conclusions above.
3. If the sufficient condition is not met in one of the scenarios in
the answer choice, you can conclude that the necessary
condition may or may not have occurred (to believe
otherwise is a Mistaken Negation).
4. If the necessary condition is met in one of the scenarios in
the answer choice, you can conclude that the sufficient
condition may or may not have occurred (to believe
otherwise is a Mistaken Reversal).
What you cannot conclude
1. If the sufficient condition is not met in one of the scenarios in
the answer choice, you can conclude that the necessary
condition has not occurred.
A simple conditional statement in combination with a
premise indicating that the sufficient condition has not
occurred does not allows the conclusion that the necessary
condition will not occur. This error is the essence of the
Mistaken Negation argument form.
2. If the necessary condition is met in one of the scenarios in
the answer choice, then you can conclude that the sufficient
condition has occurred.
Given a simple conditional relationship, there is no premise
that can be used to conclude that the sufficient condition
occurs. To make this error is to make a Mistaken Reversal.
The ideas presented in the discussion above are not new to you—this
ground was thoroughly covered in Chapter Six: Conditional Reasoning.
The ideas are reintroduced here because many Must-PR questions
revolve around the conclusions that can and cannot be drawn from a
conditional relationship, and the rate at which students miss these
questions is astoundingly high. For example, this question is classified
by Law Services as among the hardest of all Logical Reasoning
questions.
Given that the first two conclusions described in the What you can
conclude section are the most likely to appear, let’s examine how they
would be presented given the principle in this stimulus:
1. If one acts responsibly in one’s professional capacity, then
one must act on the basis of information that one has made a
reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and complete.
2. If one acts on the basis of information that one has not made
a reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and complete,
then one has not acted responsibly in one’s professional
capacity,
Of the two, the second conclusion is the most likely to appear since it
involves an extra step while taking the contrapositive (the test makers
always want you to go the extra mile!).
Note also that although the principle is broad, it has specifications that
must be met in order for the principle to apply:
• one must be acting in a professional capacity
• one must make a reasonable effort to ensure the information
used is accurate and complete
Answer choice (A): Right out of the gate you are faced with a trap
answer. From the discussion you know that you cannot draw a
conclusion that a sufficient condition has occurred (there is no premise
that can be used to force a sufficient condition to occur). Yet, this answer
attempts to conclude that Peggy acted responsibly, which is the same as
the sufficient condition. Therefore, the judgment (conclusion) in this
answer does not conform to the principle in the stimulus and this answer
is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): When creating incorrect answers, the test makers
love to recycle difficult concepts and have them appear more than once
in a problem. Structurally, this answer is identical to answer choice (A).
Based on the principle in the stimulus, there is no way to conclude that
anyone has acted responsibly, and once you recognize that fact, you can
quickly eliminate the first two answer choices.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. Applying the principle to
this scenario, when Toril did not investigate the risks associated with
investing in Twicycled Ink, he failed to make a reasonable effort to
ensure the information used to make the decision was accurate and
complete. On that basis, we know Toril did not meet the necessary
condition in the principle, and therefore Toril did not act responsibly.
Since the answer choice arrives at the same conclusion, this answer is
correct. Note that, as you might expect, this answer requires the most
work from the test taker.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice does not use the principle in the
stimulus to arrive at its conclusion. Although Helmer made an error that
cost the company money, the answer choice does not address the
condition of the principle that states “one must act on the basis of
information that one has made a reasonable effort to make sure is
accurate and complete.” More problematic, the conclusion addresses
Conchita, not Helmer, and no information is given to indicate whether
Conchita made a reasonable effort to assure the reliability of the
information used to hire Helmer (since she hired Helmer, it is assumed
she acted in a professional capacity). Since no information is given that
proves Conchita did not fulfill the necessary condition, the principle
cannot be used to arrive at the conclusion that Conchita did not act
responsibly.
Although the conclusion is one that could be drawn from applying the
principle, in this instance no premise is provided that calls for the
application of the principle, and thus the answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice indicates that Jennifer’s decision
involved a vacation, which is a personal decision, not a professional
decision. Since the principle in the stimulus is clear that the requirements
for acting responsibly address one’s professional capacity, this situation
does not conform to the principle.
This answer provides an excellent example of the intelligence used
when LSAT questions are constructed. The stimulus is clear that
professional capacity is part of the conditional relationship, but none of
the first four answers test that fact. By the time most students reach this
answer, they have forgotten the details of the principle, making this final
answer a perfect place to test this element.
In Must-PR questions, the principle creates a broad rule that can then be
applied to a variety of situations. The correct answer in these questions
always features a scenario that addresses each part of the principle, and
if an answer does not match part of the principle, it is incorrect.
Be careful of question stemsusing the word “conform.” Sometimes they ask if the
stimulus conforms (which is a Strengthen-PR question) but other times they ask if the answer choice conforms (which is generally a Must-PR question).
Principle questions (PR) are not a separate question type but are instead an
“overlay” that appears in a variety of question types. For example, there are
Strengthen Principle questions (Strengthen-PR), Justify Principle questions
(Justify-PR), and Cannot Be True Principle questions (Cannot-PR), among
others. In a question stem, the key indicator that the Principle concept is present
is the word “principle.” Here are several examples of Principle question stems:
“Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the
principle above?” (Must-PR)
“Which one of the following judgments best illustrates the principle
illustrated by the argument above?” (Must-PR)
“The principle above, if established, would justify which one of the
following judgments?” (Must-PR)
“Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the
reasoning above?” (Strengthen-PR)
“The information above most closely conforms to which one of the
following principles?” (Strengthen-PR)
“Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle
underlying the argumentation above?” (Justify-PR)
“Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the
columnist’s conclusion EXCEPT:” (Cannot-PR)
A principle is a broad rule that specifies what actions or judgments are correct in
certain situations. For example, “Some companies are profitable” is not a
principle because no rule is involved and no judgment can be drawn from the
statement. “All companies should strive to be profitable” is a principle, and one
that can be applied to any company.
The degree of generality of principles can vary considerably, and some are
much narrower than others. For example, “Children at Smith Elementary
School must wear uniforms” is a principle restricted to children attending Smith.
The principle does not apply to a child attending a different school. On the other
hand, the principle “Any person of voting age has an obligation to vote” applies
to a large number of people regardless of background, education, wealth, etc.
Since a principle is by definition a broad rule (usually conditional in nature), the
presence of the Principle indicator serves to broaden the scope of the question.
The question becomes more abstract, and you must analyze the problem to
identify the underlying relationships. Functionally, you must take a broad,
global proposition and apply it in a specific manner, either to the answer choices
(as in a Must or Parallel question) or to the stimulus (as in a Strengthen or
Justify question).
Because principles must retain broad applicability and must typically meet a condition
to apply, they are often conditional statements. However, there are exceptions,
such as with causal principles.
Here is a brief analysis of how this process affects the two
question types most likely to appear with a Principle designation:
1. Must Be True Principle Questions
In these questions you must use the principle presented in the stimulus
and then apply it to the situation in each answer choice (one principle
applied to five situations). Although these are Must Be True questions,
the presence of the principle designation broadens the question, and the
answer choice can address a scenario not specifically included in the
stimulus; your job is to find the answer that follows from the application
of the principle. If an answer does not match the principle, it is incorrect.
Since many, if not all, of the principles in these stimuli are conditional,
you will often be able to identify that reasoning and make a quick
diagram. If you cannot clearly identify the conditional nature of the
principle, create an abstraction of the stimulus similar to one you would
create in a Parallel Reasoning question. This approach can be useful
since it creates an accurate representation of the principle.
The classification of these questions can sometimes be difficult for
students since the relation of the stimulus to the answer choices is so
similar to Parallel Reasoning questions (each answer often features a
scenario and topic that is entirely different from that in the stimulus).
Remember, both Parallel Reasoning and Must Be True questions are in
the First Question Family, and they share many of the same
characteristics. In the final analysis, when considering the answer
choices, ask yourself, “Does this answer match the attributes of the
principle in the stimulus?”
Now, let us look at an example of this type of question and see how the
addition of the Principle concept affects the problem.
Please take a moment to complete the following question:
1. To act responsibly in one’s professional capacity, one
must act on the basis of information that one has
made a reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and
complete.
Which one of the following judgments most closely
conforms to the principle cited above?
(A) Peggy acted responsibly in ordering new
computers for the school last year because
they turned out to be needed due to an
unexpected increase in enrollment this year.
(B) Mary acted responsibly in firing John, for she
first examined the details of his work record
and listened to negative reports from some of
his supervisors and coworkers.
(C) Toril did not act responsibly in investing the
company’s money in Twicycled Ink, for,
though the investment yielded a large return,
she had not investigated the risks associated
with that investment.
(D) Conchita did not act responsibly in hiring
Helmer to do the company’s bookkeeping
because Helmer made a mistake that cost the
company a lot of money, though he had
never been known to make such a mistake in
the past.
(E) Jennifer did not act responsibly in deciding
where to go on her vacation because, instead
of carefully weighing her options, she waited
until the last minute and decided on impulse.
The first thing students notice about this question is its length. Like
Parallel reasoning questions, Principle questions are often quite lengthy,
and this is part of the reason they are challenging.
In this instance the principle appears in the stimulus, and you are
required to find the answer choice that most closely follows the
principle. By comparing the principle with each answer choice, you can
find the answer that best meets the stipulations of the principle.
As you read the stimulus, you should hone in on the conditional nature
of the principle (“one must act...”):
AR = act responsibly in one’s professional capacity
ABI = must act on the basis of information that one has made a
reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and complete.
AR---------> ABI
Let’s take a moment to review the conclusions that can be drawn when
you are given a simple conditional statement and additional information:
What you can conclude
1. If the sufficient condition is met in one of the scenarios in the
answer choice, then it can be concluded that the necessary
condition has occurred.
A simple conditional statement combined with a premise
indicating that the sufficient condition has occurred allows
the conclusion that the necessary condition will occur. This
is the essence of the Repeat conditional argument form.
2. If the necessary condition is not met in one of the scenarios
in the answer choice, then it can be concluded that the
sufficient condition has not occurred.
A simple conditional statement combined with a premise
indicating that the necessary condition has not occurred
allows the conclusion that the sufficient condition will not
occur. This is the essence of the contrapositive argument
form.
The two conclusions above are the most likely to appear in any given
Principle question. The following two conclusions can also be drawn,
but they appear less frequently than the conclusions above.
3. If the sufficient condition is not met in one of the scenarios in
the answer choice, you can conclude that the necessary
condition may or may not have occurred (to believe
otherwise is a Mistaken Negation).
4. If the necessary condition is met in one of the scenarios in
the answer choice, you can conclude that the sufficient
condition may or may not have occurred (to believe
otherwise is a Mistaken Reversal).
What you cannot conclude
1. If the sufficient condition is not met in one of the scenarios in
the answer choice, you can conclude that the necessary
condition has not occurred.
A simple conditional statement in combination with a
premise indicating that the sufficient condition has not
occurred does not allows the conclusion that the necessary
condition will not occur. This error is the essence of the
Mistaken Negation argument form.
2. If the necessary condition is met in one of the scenarios in
the answer choice, then you can conclude that the sufficient
condition has occurred.
Given a simple conditional relationship, there is no premise
that can be used to conclude that the sufficient condition
occurs. To make this error is to make a Mistaken Reversal.
The ideas presented in the discussion above are not new to you—this
ground was thoroughly covered in Chapter Six: Conditional Reasoning.
The ideas are reintroduced here because many Must-PR questions
revolve around the conclusions that can and cannot be drawn from a
conditional relationship, and the rate at which students miss these
questions is astoundingly high. For example, this question is classified
by Law Services as among the hardest of all Logical Reasoning
questions.
Given that the first two conclusions described in the What you can
conclude section are the most likely to appear, let’s examine how they
would be presented given the principle in this stimulus:
1. If one acts responsibly in one’s professional capacity, then
one must act on the basis of information that one has made a
reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and complete.
2. If one acts on the basis of information that one has not made
a reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and complete,
then one has not acted responsibly in one’s professional
capacity,
Of the two, the second conclusion is the most likely to appear since it
involves an extra step while taking the contrapositive (the test makers
always want you to go the extra mile!).
Note also that although the principle is broad, it has specifications that
must be met in order for the principle to apply:
• one must be acting in a professional capacity
• one must make a reasonable effort to ensure the information
used is accurate and complete
Answer choice (A): Right out of the gate you are faced with a trap
answer. From the discussion you know that you cannot draw a
conclusion that a sufficient condition has occurred (there is no premise
that can be used to force a sufficient condition to occur). Yet, this answer
attempts to conclude that Peggy acted responsibly, which is the same as
the sufficient condition. Therefore, the judgment (conclusion) in this
answer does not conform to the principle in the stimulus and this answer
is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): When creating incorrect answers, the test makers
love to recycle difficult concepts and have them appear more than once
in a problem. Structurally, this answer is identical to answer choice (A).
Based on the principle in the stimulus, there is no way to conclude that
anyone has acted responsibly, and once you recognize that fact, you can
quickly eliminate the first two answer choices.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. Applying the principle to
this scenario, when Toril did not investigate the risks associated with
investing in Twicycled Ink, he failed to make a reasonable effort to
ensure the information used to make the decision was accurate and
complete. On that basis, we know Toril did not meet the necessary
condition in the principle, and therefore Toril did not act responsibly.
Since the answer choice arrives at the same conclusion, this answer is
correct. Note that, as you might expect, this answer requires the most
work from the test taker.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice does not use the principle in the
stimulus to arrive at its conclusion. Although Helmer made an error that
cost the company money, the answer choice does not address the
condition of the principle that states “one must act on the basis of
information that one has made a reasonable effort to make sure is
accurate and complete.” More problematic, the conclusion addresses
Conchita, not Helmer, and no information is given to indicate whether
Conchita made a reasonable effort to assure the reliability of the
information used to hire Helmer (since she hired Helmer, it is assumed
she acted in a professional capacity). Since no information is given that
proves Conchita did not fulfill the necessary condition, the principle
cannot be used to arrive at the conclusion that Conchita did not act
responsibly.
Although the conclusion is one that could be drawn from applying the
principle, in this instance no premise is provided that calls for the
application of the principle, and thus the answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice indicates that Jennifer’s decision
involved a vacation, which is a personal decision, not a professional
decision. Since the principle in the stimulus is clear that the requirements
for acting responsibly address one’s professional capacity, this situation
does not conform to the principle.
This answer provides an excellent example of the intelligence used
when LSAT questions are constructed. The stimulus is clear that
professional capacity is part of the conditional relationship, but none of
the first four answers test that fact. By the time most students reach this
answer, they have forgotten the details of the principle, making this final
answer a perfect place to test this element.
In Must-PR questions, the principle creates a broad rule that can then be
applied to a variety of situations. The correct answer in these questions
always features a scenario that addresses each part of the principle, and
if an answer does not match part of the principle, it is incorrect.
No comments:
Post a Comment