Remember, techniques that require a number of steps seem daunting at first
(think about your first time driving a car). But as you practice with each technique,
you will get faster and eventually your application of the technique will be transparent and
effortless. To reach that level takes practice, but the rewards are great. You should note
that this example has a conditional structure like those discussed in the previous section.
Although many justify the conclusion questions can be solved quickly and
easily through the normal methods of breaking the argument down and
analyzing the answer choices, sometimes you will find yourself unable to
answer a question. Because Justify the Conclusion questions can be
characterized in formulaic terms, you can often solve these questions using a
mechanistic approach. This approach requires you to reduce the stimulus to its
component parts (a process that occurs naturally as you identify premises and
conclusions), and then identify which elements appear in the conclusion but not
in the premises. The following rules apply:
1. Any “new” element in the conclusion will appear in the correct answer.
“New” or “rogue” elements are those that did not appear in any of the
premises. By definition, any new element in the conclusion must be
proven to occur, and so if the new element is not in the premises then it
must be introduced in the correct answer choice.
2. Elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one premise
normally do not appear in the correct answer.
If an element occurs in both the conclusion and premises, then there is a
bridge already established that justifies the presence of the element in the
conclusion. Hence, the correct answer need not contain this element.
3. Elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion usually
appear in the correct answer.
For those of you thinking that this method is similar to the technique we will use for
Assumption questions, it is. Justify answers are often assumptions of the argument, but
not always. A Justify answer can contain components that, if they appeared in an Assumption question, would make the answer incorrect. Using the example to the left, an
answer that would be correct for a Justify problem but incorrect for an Assumption problem would be, “Joan lives in a red house in Manhattan.” When we discuss Assumption question in the next section this distinction will be clear.
Although these premise elements do not have to appear in the correct
answer, they often do because they represent a convenient linking point.
In a nutshell, the rules condense to the following: link new elements in the
premises and conclusion and ignore elements common to both. Consider the
following example:
Premise: Every person who lives in Manhattan hates the subway.
Conclusion: Joan hates the subway.
Now we will analyze this answer from a mechanistic standpoint:
1. “Joan” is a new element in the conclusion. The correct answer must
contain “Joan.” Any answer that does not contain Joan will be incorrect.
Otherwise, how can we justify that Joan hates the subway?
2. “Hates the subway” is common to both the premise and conclusion.
Elements that are common to both the premise and conclusion in a
justify question do not normally appear in the correct answer choice,
hence we would not expect to see this element in the correct answer.
3. “Every person who lives in Manhattan” is an element that appears in the
premise but not the conclusion. Chances are high that this element will
appear in the correct answer.
As you might imagine, the correct answer to this problem will be along the lines
of “Joan lives in Manhattan.” This answer connects the new elements in the
premise and conclusion and ignores the elements common to both. Let us try
the mechanistic approach on an actual LSAT question. Please take a moment to
consider the following question:
2. If something would have been justifiably regretted if it had occurred, then it is something that one should not have desired in the first place. It follows that many forgone pleasures should not have been desired in the first place.
The conclusion above follows logically if which one
of the following is assumed?
(A) One should never regret one’s pleasures.
(B) Forgone pleasures that were not desired would
not have been justifiably regretted.
(C) Everything that one desires and then regrets
not having is a forgone pleasure.
(D) Many forgone pleasures would have been
justifiably regretted.
(E) Nothing that one should not have desired in
the first place fails to be a pleasure.
(think about your first time driving a car). But as you practice with each technique,
you will get faster and eventually your application of the technique will be transparent and
effortless. To reach that level takes practice, but the rewards are great. You should note
that this example has a conditional structure like those discussed in the previous section.
Although many justify the conclusion questions can be solved quickly and
easily through the normal methods of breaking the argument down and
analyzing the answer choices, sometimes you will find yourself unable to
answer a question. Because Justify the Conclusion questions can be
characterized in formulaic terms, you can often solve these questions using a
mechanistic approach. This approach requires you to reduce the stimulus to its
component parts (a process that occurs naturally as you identify premises and
conclusions), and then identify which elements appear in the conclusion but not
in the premises. The following rules apply:
1. Any “new” element in the conclusion will appear in the correct answer.
“New” or “rogue” elements are those that did not appear in any of the
premises. By definition, any new element in the conclusion must be
proven to occur, and so if the new element is not in the premises then it
must be introduced in the correct answer choice.
2. Elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one premise
normally do not appear in the correct answer.
If an element occurs in both the conclusion and premises, then there is a
bridge already established that justifies the presence of the element in the
conclusion. Hence, the correct answer need not contain this element.
3. Elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion usually
appear in the correct answer.
For those of you thinking that this method is similar to the technique we will use for
Assumption questions, it is. Justify answers are often assumptions of the argument, but
not always. A Justify answer can contain components that, if they appeared in an Assumption question, would make the answer incorrect. Using the example to the left, an
answer that would be correct for a Justify problem but incorrect for an Assumption problem would be, “Joan lives in a red house in Manhattan.” When we discuss Assumption question in the next section this distinction will be clear.
Although these premise elements do not have to appear in the correct
answer, they often do because they represent a convenient linking point.
In a nutshell, the rules condense to the following: link new elements in the
premises and conclusion and ignore elements common to both. Consider the
following example:
Premise: Every person who lives in Manhattan hates the subway.
Conclusion: Joan hates the subway.
Now we will analyze this answer from a mechanistic standpoint:
1. “Joan” is a new element in the conclusion. The correct answer must
contain “Joan.” Any answer that does not contain Joan will be incorrect.
Otherwise, how can we justify that Joan hates the subway?
2. “Hates the subway” is common to both the premise and conclusion.
Elements that are common to both the premise and conclusion in a
justify question do not normally appear in the correct answer choice,
hence we would not expect to see this element in the correct answer.
3. “Every person who lives in Manhattan” is an element that appears in the
premise but not the conclusion. Chances are high that this element will
appear in the correct answer.
As you might imagine, the correct answer to this problem will be along the lines
of “Joan lives in Manhattan.” This answer connects the new elements in the
premise and conclusion and ignores the elements common to both. Let us try
the mechanistic approach on an actual LSAT question. Please take a moment to
consider the following question:
2. If something would have been justifiably regretted if it had occurred, then it is something that one should not have desired in the first place. It follows that many forgone pleasures should not have been desired in the first place.
The conclusion above follows logically if which one
of the following is assumed?
(A) One should never regret one’s pleasures.
(B) Forgone pleasures that were not desired would
not have been justifiably regretted.
(C) Everything that one desires and then regrets
not having is a forgone pleasure.
(D) Many forgone pleasures would have been
justifiably regretted.
(E) Nothing that one should not have desired in
the first place fails to be a pleasure.
