LSAT Logical Reasoning: Paradox

Question Type: Paradox
A paradox arises when you are presented with two statements that are both true, yet
they appear to be mutually contradictory. The key words to help you spot paradox question
stems are “explain” and “reconcile.”
Some sample questions stems are
1. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the people
mentioned continued to grow beans?
2. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the finding of the
caffeine study?
3. Which one of the following, if true, helps to reconcile the statements above?
4. Which one of the following, if true, does the most to reconcile the apparent
conflict in the system described above?
Strategies
The stimulus argument in paradox questions usually includes a term that either must be
redefined in order to resolve the paradox, or contains a misinterpretation of a term upon
which the author relies. You must recognize the contradiction that exists and look for an
answer choice that more clearly defines a critical term.
We often refer to the “bumblebee paradox” with our tutoring students. Current research
suggests that a bumblebee’s wings are aerodynamically unsound; as a result, a bumblebee
should not be able to fly. However, bumblebees do fly, so clearly the term “aerodynamically
unsound” is poorly defined.
Sample Paradox Question
Consider the following example:
1. Researchers concur with one another on the issue of the harm that can result when
children are exposed to microscopic asbestos fibers. The resulting disease, asbestosis,
is almost always debilitating and even sometimes fatal. Many older school buildings
contain asbestos insulation around hot water pipes and heating ducts because, until
recently, the dangers of asbestos were unknown. Yet, these same researchers also
agree that laws requiring the removal of asbestos from schools could actually lead
to an increased likelihood of exposure to asbestos fibers to the students who attend
those schools.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy
in the researchers’ positions?
(A) New insulation materials used instead of asbestos are as potentially harmful
to children as asbestos is.
(B) The money that would be spent on the removal of asbestos from schools
could be spent in other ways that would be more likely to increase the
overall health of school children.
(C) Other sources of asbestos, such as automobile and household uses, are
responsible for more cases of asbestosis than school-based sources are.
(D) Removing the asbestos from older schools disperses a large quantity of
asbestos fibers into the air, where they are more easily inhaled than when
they are left in place around the pipes and ducts.
(E) Lead-based paint poses more of a health hazard to children than asbestos
does.
The best answer is D. Answer choice D provides an explanation for the suggestion not
to remove the asbestos. Essentially, this answer boils down to pointing out that the act of
removal itself is more dangerous than simply leaving the hazard in place. Answer choices
A, C, and E are all incorrect because they focus on other potential sources of harm rather
than the apparent conflict between the two positions that the researchers hold simultaneously:
1) that asbestos can cause serious harm, and 2) that it should not be removed from
schools. Answer choice B is incorrect because it focuses on financial issues rather than the
seemingly logical inconsistency inherent in the researchers’ positions.

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Flaw

Question Type: Flaw
These questions ask you to identify an error of reasoning in the stimulus argument.
Some sample question stems are
1. Which one of the following, if true, identifies a flaw in the plan for the program?
2. The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
3. The reasoning above is questionable because it fails to exclude the
possibility that
4. The reasoning in the politician’s argument is flawed because this argument
5. Ralph’s reasoning in his response to Jessica is most vulnerable to criticism on the
grounds that it
6. Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed
in the above argument?
Strategies
The question stem tells you that a problem exists with the logic of the argument. You
just have to choose the answer that describes the flaw. Most flawed arguments include
an unwarranted assumption; in other words, the argument is weakened by a missing link
between the stated evidence and the stated conclusion. The author of the argument is
taking something for granted that is not necessarily true.
Sample Flaw Question
Consider the following example:
1. Giant Motors is attempting to dominate the automobile market by promoting its
products with an expensive television advertising campaign. But, the results of recent
surveys reveal that, in the opinion of 85 percent of all consumers, Giant Motors
already dominates the market. Since any product with more than half of all sales in
any given market is already dominant, Giant Motors dominates the market now and
must only preserve its market share in order to continue to dominate its market.
The argument commits which one of the following errors in reasoning?
(A) Failing to eliminate the possibility that what seems to be the outcome of a
specific market condition might actually be the cause of the condition
(B) Confusing a condition necessary for certain outcome to obtain for a condition
that, alone, is sufficient to assure that result
(C) Treating the failure to establish the falsity of a specific claim as tantamount
to showing that such a claim is certainly accurate
(D) Accepting evidence that a claim is believed to be true as evidence that the
claim, itself, is actually true
(E) Describing the results of a survey that was done in the past as acceptably
predicting future conditions
The best answer is D. The survey results only show the opinions of consumers. The
stimulus argument relies upon those beliefs as fact in concluding that Giant Motors
dominates the automobile market. There is no reason to accept the opinion of
consumers as an accurate measure of Giant Motors’s actual share of the automobile
market. Each of the other answer choices describes an error in reasoning that is irrelevant
to the stimulus argument.

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Role of Fact

Question Type: Role of Fact
Some of the questions ask about the role, or function, of a specific fact that is included
in the stimulus argument.
Some sample question stems are
1. The claim that taxes should increase in proportion to a person’s income plays
which one of the following roles in the argument?
2. The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following
roles in the argument?
3. Joshua’s statement that “this claim simply cannot be proved” plays which one of
the following roles in his argument?
4. Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the
passage by the claim that fish have gills?
Strategies
To answer these questions correctly, you must determine the reason why the author
included this particular fact or detail. Most of the incorrect answer choices will either be
too narrow or too broad, or beyond the scope of the stimulus argument.
Sample Role of Fact Question
Consider the following example:

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Point of Contention

Question Type: Point of Contention
These questions always involve a dialogue between two people who disagree about
something. You are expected to choose the answer that best describes the crux of the
disagreement.
Some sample question stems are
1. Todd’s and Andy’s positions indicate that they disagree about the truth of which
one of the following?
2. A point on which Randy and Salvatore’s views differ is whether
3. William and Max disagree over whether
4. The dialogue most supports the claim that Heather and Mike disagree about
whether
Strategies
Your first step is to understand, then succinctly summarize the first party’s argument.
Next, determine where the first and second parties differ in their statements.
Paraphrasing will help you get to the root of the argument and quickly locate the
correct answer.
Sample Point of Contention Question
Consider the following example:
1. Jason: The Internet is making more information available to more people than
ever before in history. So, people can simply learn all they need to know without
seeking the advice of experts.
Mark: In the past, the need for experts actually increased as the volume of knowledge
increased. Therefore, the Internet will surely increase our dependence on
experts.
The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that Jason and Mark disagree with
each other about whether
(A) the Internet will contribute significantly to the increase in the spread of
information throughout society
(B) the Internet will increase the likelihood that people will seek the advice of
experts when searching for knowledge
(C) the Internet makes more information available to more people
(D) experts will increase their reliance on the Internet in the future
(E) explaining knowledge to specialists can only be accomplished by Internet
experts
The best answer is B. Jason thinks that experts will become irrelevant because of
direct public access to information. Mark thinks that the opposite will occur.

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Principle

Question Type: Principle
These questions ask you to identify a rule, or principle, that supports the stimulus argument
presented. In some cases, you are required to choose an argument that conforms
to the stimulus principle.
Some example question stems are
1. The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following
principles?
2. Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated
above?
3. Which one of the following employee behaviors most clearly violates the company
policy outlined above?
4. Which one of the following illustrates a principle most similar to that illustrated
by the passage?
Strategies
The first step in answering these questions is to identify the rule or principle in the
stimulus argument. Then, select the answer choice that relies on the same rule or principle.
You should generally avoid any answer choices that include the same subject
matter as that of the stimulus argument; focus on the rule or principle, not on the
content.

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Method of Argument

Question Type: Method of Argument
Method of argument questions ask you to recognize the way that the argument is put
together. You must choose the answer that properly describes the structure of the stimulus
argument. Some, but certainly not all, method of argument questions are based on
dialogues.
Some examples of question stems are
1. The scientist’s argument proceeds by
2. Trillian’s response to Douglas proceeds by
3. Karen uses which one of the following argumentative techniques in countering
Rob’s argument?
4. The argument criticizing the essay employs which one of the following strategies?
5. The relationship of Svetlana’s statement to Katalya’s argument is that Svetlana’s
statement
Strategies
To answer these questions correctly, you must pay attention to the structure of the argument
rather than to the content or subject matter. Describe the argument in your own
words (paraphrase) and try to match up the analogous parts of your paraphrased argument
to the answer choices.

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Conclusion

Question Type: Conclusion
These questions ask you to draw a conclusion from evidence presented within the stimulus.
In some cases, the conclusion that you are asked to draw is based on only part of
the stimulus and will not necessarily be the main idea of the stimulus paragraph. Some
conclusion questions use the terms “infer” and “imply.”

NOTE
Remember that “imply” and “infer” are just two sides of the same coin; the speaker, or author, implies and
the listener, or reader, infers.

Some example question stems are
1. If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true on
the basis of them?
2. If the environmentalist’s statements are true, they provide the most support for
which one of the following?
3. Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information
above?
4. Amy’s reply is structured to lead to which one of the following conclusions?
5. Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information
above?
6. Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the argument above?
Strategies
To correctly answer these questions you must consider the validity of the argument.
Look for the logical end of the chain of reasoning started in the stimulus argument.
Sample Conclusion Question
Consider the following example:

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Weaken/Strengthen

Question Type: Weaken/Strengthen
You will have to attack a significant number of weaken and strengthen questions in
order to end up with a respectable LSAT score. This question type also sometimes
appears in the Reading Comprehension section of the exam. Since the LSAT is set up to test your understanding of the structure of arguments, the correct answer choices for
weakening and strengthening questions will more often undermine or support their
respective conclusions structurally rather than by directly attacking stated evidence, or
by providing new evidence. You can undermine conclusions by finding a key assumption
in the argument and then finding the answer choice that will make that assumption
more likely to be true or less likely to be true, as the case may be.
NOTE
Remember that weakening an argument does not mean disproving it completely and strengthening an argument does not mean proving it beyond all doubt. To strengthen an argument is to make the conclusion more likely to be true, and to weaken an argument is to make the conclusion at least somewhat less likely to be true.

Some example question stems are
Weaken:
1. Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the above argument?
2. The prediction that ends the paragraph would be most seriously called into question
if it were true that
3. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the researcher’s argument?
4. Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the argument that…?
5. Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion?
6. Which one of the following, if true, would be the strongest challenge to the
author’s conclusion?
Strengthen:
1. Which one of the following, if established, does most to justify the position advanced by the passage?
2. Which one of the following, if true, provides the best reason in favor of the proposal?
3. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
4. Which of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the scientist’s reasoning?
5. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to support the claim that…?
6. Which one of the following, if true, most supports the proposal?

Strategies

LSAT Logical Reasoning: Assumption

Question Type: Assumption
Assumption questions ask you to identify the missing link in the logic of the stimulus
argument.
Some example question stems are
1. Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the argument’s conclusion to be
properly drawn?
2. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
3. The final conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is
assumed?
4. The claim made by the official in the argument above depends on the presupposition
that
5. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
Strategies
The most time-efficient way to answer assumption questions is to recognize the missing
link in the argument as you read the stimulus. Sometimes, the wording of the argument
and the answer choices can be confusing. So, you might want to employ the technique
of negating the answer choices that you want to test. Negation is fully explained in
Chapter 3, “Introduction to LSAT Logic.”
Because an assumption is an unstated piece of evidence, this technique “knocks out”
each answer choice that you test, one by one. When you test the correct answer, you are
knocking out a piece of evidence, and the argument should suffer accordingly.
In tutoring sessions, we often use the analogy of testing to see if a wall within a house
or an office is important to the structure by knocking the wall down to see if the roof
falls in. If the roof falls in, we have shown that the wall was important. If there is no
effect on the structure, the wall was not a load-bearing wall. In other words, the wall
was irrelevant to the strength of the structure.
Sample Assumption Question
Consider the following example: