Flaw in the Reasoning Question Problem Set

1. Editorial: The premier’s economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services
can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.
Which one of the following is a questionable
argumentative strategy employed in the editorial’s
argument?
(A) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a
particular implementation of the proposal is
likely to fail
(B) trying to win support for a proposal by playing
on people’s fears of what could happen
otherwise
(C) criticizing the source of a claim rather than
examining the claim itself
(D) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as
evidence undermining the claim
(E) presupposing what it sets out to establish
2. Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, since Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on
which one of the following grounds?
(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential
counterevidence.
(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences.
(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish.
(D) It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter
to which their expertise is irrelevant.
(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated
lapses in performance.
3. Activist: Food producers irradiate food in order to prolong its shelf life. Five animal studies were recently conducted to investigate whether this process alters food in a way that could be dangerous to people who eat it. The studies concluded that irradiated food is safe for humans to eat. However, because these studies were subsequently found by a panel of
independent scientists to be seriously flawed in their methodology, it follows that irradiated
food is not safe for human consumption.
The reasoning in the activist’s argument is flawed
because that argument
(A) treats a failure to prove a claim as constituting
proof of the denial of that claim
(B) treats methodological flaws in past studies as
proof that it is currently not possible to
devise methodologically adequate
alternatives
(C) fails to consider the possibility that even a
study whose methodology has no serious
flaws nonetheless might provide only weak
support for its conclusion
(D) fails to consider the possibility that what is safe
for animals might not always be safe for
human beings
(E) fails to establish that the independent scientists
know more about food irradiation than do the
people who produced the five studies

Common Errors of Reasoning Explained

The following classic errors of reasoning appear with some frequency. The
review is given in layman’s, not philosophical, terms:
Uncertain Use of a Term or Concept
As an argument progresses, the author must use each term in a constant,
coherent fashion. Using a term in different ways is inherently confusing and
undermines the integrity of the argument. Here is an example:
“Some people claim that the values that this country was built on are
now being ignored by modern-day corporations. But this is incorrect.
Corporations are purely profit-driven enterprises, beholden only to their
shareholders, and as such they can only assess objects based on their
value.”
The term “value” is used in the example above in two different senses: first in a
moral or ethical sense and then in a monetary sense. This shift in meaning
undermines the author’s position.
This type of answer choice appears more frequently as an incorrect answer than
any other type. Here are examples of how this error of reasoning is described in
LSAT answer choices:
“depending on the ambiguous use of a key term”
“it confuses two different meanings of the word ‘solve’ ”
“relies on interpreting a key term in two different ways”
“equivocates with respect to a central concept”
“allows a key term to shift in meaning from one use to the next”
“fails to define the term”
Source Argument
Also known as an ad hominem, this type of flawed argument attacks the person
(or source) instead of the argument they advance. Because the LSAT is
concerned solely with argument forms, a speaker can never validly attack the
character or motives of a person; instead, a speaker must always attack the
argument advanced by a person. Here is an example:
“The anti-smoking views expressed by Senator Smith should be
ignored. After all, Smith himself is a smoker!”
A source argument can take different forms, including the following:
1. Focusing on the motives of the source.
2. Focusing on the actions of the source (as in the above example).
In the real world, you will often hear source arguments used by children and
politicians (the two being alike in a number of ways, of course).
Here are examples of how this error of reasoning is described in LSAT answer
choices:
“makes an attack on the character of opponents”
“it is directed against the proponent of a claim rather than against the
claim itself”
“he directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather
than directing it against the argument itself”
“it draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content
of that position from evidence about the position’s source”
“assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending
it is of questionable character”
Circular Reasoning
In circular reasoning the author assumes as true what is supposed to be proved.
Consider the following example:
“This essay is the best because it is better than all the others.”
In this example the premise and the conclusion are identical in meaning. As we
know, the conclusion should always follow from the premise. In the example
above, the premise supports the conclusion, but the conclusion equally supports
the premise, creating a “circular” situation where you can move from premise to
conclusion, and then back again to the premise, and so on. Here is another
example: “I must be telling the truth because I’m not lying.”
Here are examples of how this error of reasoning is described in LSAT answer
choices:
“it assumes what it seeks to establish”
“argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the
premises”
“presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove”
“the argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate”
“it takes for granted the very claim that it sets out to establish”
“it offers, in place of support for its conclusion, a mere restatement of
that conclusion”

Errors of Conditional Reasoning

The Value of Knowing Common Errors of Reasoning

The paragraphs to the right help explain why test preparation works: the more you know about the exam before you walk in to take the test, the less time you have to waste during
the exam thinking about these issues.
In logic there are many more recognized forms of invalid argumentation than
there are forms of valid argumentation. The test makers, being human (yes, it’s
true), tend to repeat certain forms when creating stimuli and answer choices,
and you can gain a demonstrable advantage by learning the forms most often
used by the test makers. Applying the knowledge you acquire in this chapter
will take two avenues:
1. Identifying errors of reasoning made in the stimulus
If you learn the mistakes that are often made by authors, then you will
be able to quickly identify the error in the argument and accelerate
through the answer choices to find the correct answer. Students without
this knowledge will be forced to work more slowly and with less
confidence.
2. Identifying answer choices that describe a common error of reasoning
In Flaw in the Reasoning questions, the test makers tend to use certain
types of answers again and again. Depending on the reasoning used in
the stimulus, these answers can describe the correct answer, but more
often than not they are used as “stock” wrong answers. Familiarizing
yourself with these answer choices will give you an advantage when
you encounter similar answer choices in the future. For example,
“attacking the source of an argument, not the argument itself” has
appeared as the correct answer in several LSAT questions. But, it has
appeared in many more questions as a wrong answer choice. If you are
familiar with a “source” argument, you can then make an immediate
determination as to whether that answer is correct or incorrect.
Given the immense advantage you get by knowing the flawed reasoning that
appear most frequently on the LSAT, the following section will detail a variety
of errors of reasoning and provide examples of actual LSAT answer choices
that describe the error under discussion. We strongly recommend that you spend
a considerable amount of time learning these forms of flawed argumentation. It
will definitely help you on the LSAT!

Flaw in the Reasoning Questions

Because Flaw in the Reasoning are so similar to Method of Reasoning questions, the
introduction to this chapter will be relatively brief.
Flaw in the Reasoning questions are exactly the same as Method of Reasoning
questions with the important exception that the question stem indicates that the
reasoning in the stimulus is flawed. Because the question stem reveals that a
flaw is present, you need not make a determination of the validity of the
stimulus; the question stem makes the determination for you. This information
provides you with a tremendous advantage because you can identify the error of
reasoning in the stimulus before proceeding to the answer choices. And, if you
did not realize there was an error of reasoning in the stimulus, the question stem
gives you the opportunity to re-evaluate the argument and find the error of
reasoning.
When indicating that a flaw is present in the argument, the test makers will use
phrases such as “the reasoning is flawed” and “the argument is vulnerable,” or
synonymous phrases. Here are several example question stems:
“Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the
argument’s reasoning?”
“The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the
ground that the argument”
“The reasoning above is flawed because it fails to recognize that”
“A questionable aspect of the reasoning above is that it”
“The reasoning in the argument is fallacious because the argument”
To identify the right answer choice, carefully consider the reasoning used in the
stimulus. The correct answer will identify the error in the author’s reasoning and
then describe that error in general terms. Beware of answers that describe a
portion of the stimulus but fail to identify the error in the reasoning.

Method of Reasoning Problem Answer Key

All answer keys in this book will indicate the source of the question by giving the month and year the
LSAT was originally administered, the Logical Reasoning section number, and the question number within
that section. Each LSAT has two Logical Reasoning sections, and so the Section 1 and Section 2
designators will refer to the first or second Logical Reasoning section in the test, not the physical section
number of the booklet.
Question #1. Method. December 2002 LSAT, Section 2, #8. The correct answer choice is (D)
The arguments of Jorge and Ruth can be analyzed as follows:
Jorge’s Argument
Premise: Rock music of the 1960s was created by and for people who were then in their teens
and early twenties.
Premise: You were just an infant then [in the 1960s].
Conclusion: You won’t be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s.
Ruth’s Argument
Premise: There are living writers who write well about ancient Roman culture, even though
those writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture.
Premise: Why should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a period
as recent as the 1960s?
Conclusion: Your reasoning is absurd.
Note that the question stem asks you to identify how Ruth responded. When two-speaker stimuli are
combined with Method of Reasoning questions, you are typically asked to identify the reasoning of only
one of the speakers (often the second speaker). However, you must still understand the argument of the
other speaker as the answer choices often refer to it.
Now let’s use the answer choices to discuss the structure of the argument.
Answer choice (A): Ruth does not challenge Jorge’s claim about her age. To the contrary, she seemingly
admits he is correct when she says “Why should my youth alone...”
Answer choice (B): Although Ruth uses an example that cites culture, she does not clarify a definition of
popular culture, and certainly not one left implicit in Jorge’s argument.
Answer choice (C): This is a Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The first part of the answer choice—“using
the example of classical culture”—does occur in Ruth’s response, but she does not use that example “in
order to legitimize contemporary culture as an object worthy of serious consideration.”
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. An analogy is a comparison between two items. In
argumentation, analogies are often used to clarify the relationship between the items or reveal a
fundamental truth about one of the items, as in “To better understand the operating system of your
computer, think of it as the brain of your system.” The use of “brain” in the preceding sentence is the
analogy.
Analogies can be used to challenge a position or support a position, but their strength often rests on the
relevant similarities between the two items or scenarios. In the next chapter we will discuss False
Analogies, where an author uses an analogy that is dissimilar enough to be nonapplicable.
As referenced in this answer choice, Ruth analogizes writing about Roman culture to writing about the
1960s to show that it is not unreasonable that someone who was an infant can write about that time period.
Jorge’s assumption is that if a person was not a teen or older during the 1960s, then they cannot write well
about the music of that period. Since all elements described in the answer choice occur and the answer
describes the method used by Ruth, this is the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): Ruth does not attack Jorge’s qualification to make his argument, just his
pronouncement that she will not be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s.
Question #2. Method-CE. June 2003 LSAT, Section 1, #4. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus in this problem appeared in Chapter Two as an example of a stimulus with two separate
speakers (however, no analysis was given at that time).
The arguments of Anne and Sue can be analyzed as follows:
Anne’s Argument
Premise: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared
brightly enough to be seen by telescope.
Premise: No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before.
Conclusion: Such a flare must be highly unusual.
Sue’s Argument
Premise: Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun.
Premise: This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very
carefully.
Conclusion: [Your conclusion is] Nonsense.
As is often the case with two-speaker stimuli, the speakers disagree. In this case, Anne uses causal
reasoning to indicate that the cause of the sighting is unusual activity with Halley’s comet:
FU = the flare is highly unusual
NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun
C                E
FU------------> NCO
Sue counters by citing an alternate cause: no one has been looking for such a flare.
NO = no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun
NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun
C                   E
NO---------------> NCO
The problem now becomes an exercise in figuring out how the test makers will describe the alternative
cause cited by Sue.
Answer choice (A): This answer quickly fails the Fact Test. Sue does not comment on tuhsee of the term
“observed” (other than to explain why the flare was observed).
Answer choice (B): Although Sue cites an explanation that is inconsistent with Anne’s claim, she does not
point out an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims
Answer choice (C): Remember, evidence is the same as premises. Does Sue contradict Anne’s premises?
No, she only contradicts her conclusion. Do not be drawn in by the word “nonsense.” That word is used to
attack the conclusion, not the premises of the argument.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. In this answer, the alternate cause is described as an
“alternative explanation.” In most cases, a causal counterargument can be described as offering an
alternative explanation.
Answer choice (E): This is a Reverse Answer. The answer appears as follows:
“undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion”
If the answer choice was reversed in the following manner, it would be correct:
“undermining her [Anne’s] conclusion while agreeing with some of Anne’s evidence ”
The evidence she agrees with is the first sentence of Anne’s argument (the premise in the second sentence
is not directly addressed).
Question #3. Method-AP, CE. October 2000 LSAT, Section 1, #15. The correct answer choice
is (C)
The argument is structured as follows:
Premise: A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata.
Premise: This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton.
Premise: Zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain.
Conclusion: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming
eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations.
The conclusion in the first line is echoed again in the final sentence. The argument part referenced in the
question stem is a premise (note the use of the premise indicator “since” in the last line), and your answer
must indicate that the role played by the argument part is that of a premise.
Answer choice (A): The portion referenced in the question stem is not a hypothesis, but rather a statement
of fact.
Answer choice (B): The statement referenced in the question stem is not an example of the way the mixing
of seawater affects feeding habits, but rather another premise that is then combined with the vertical mixing
premise to help support the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The phrase “it helps show” describes a premise, and in this
case the premise is used to support a statement about the effect of temperature changes on fish and
seabirds.
Answer choice (D): The argument does not take a position that global warming should be curtailed.
Instead, the argument shows how small changes in sea temperature lead to population declines, and no
opinion of those effects is stated.
Answer choice (E): This is an Exaggerated Answer. The argument specifically indicates that fish and
seabirds populations will decline. This answer choices states that all organisms are threatened.
Question #4. Method-AP. December 2003 LSAT, Section 2, #18. The correct answer choice is (D)
The nutritionist’s argument can be deconstructed as follows:
Premise: Humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture.
Subconclusion/
Premise: It is clear that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods, consisting
mainly of raw fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, lean meat, and seafood.
Premise: Straying from this diet has often resulted in chronic illness and other physical problems.
Conclusion: Thus, the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be.
The statement referenced in the question stem is a subconclusion. Answer choice (D), the correct answer,
describes this role using the phrase “intermediate conclusion.” This is a great example of a question that
allows you to accelerate: if you take the correct steps (fulfill the Primary Objectives) when analyzing the
argument, you already know the correct answer and you simply need to scan the answer choices quickly
for a match.

Method of Reasoning Problem Set

1. Jorge: You won’t be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s, since you were just an infant then. Rock music of the 1960s was created by and for people who were then in their teens and early twenties.
Ruth: Your reasoning is absurd. There are living writers who write well about ancient Roman
culture, even though those writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture.
Why should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a period as
recent as the 1960s?
Ruth responds to Jorge’s criticism by
(A) challenging his claim that she was not in her
teens or early twenties during the 1960s
(B) clarifying a definition of popular culture that is
left implicit in Jorge’s argument
(C) using the example of classical culture in order
to legitimize contemporary culture as an
object worthy of serious consideration
(D) offering an analogy to counter an unstated
assumption of Jorge’s argument
(E) casting doubt on her opponent’s qualification
to make judgments about popular culture
2. Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope. No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.
Sue: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.
Sue challenges Anne’s reasoning by
(A) pointing out that Anne’s use of the term
“observed” is excessively vague
(B) drawing attention to an inconsistency between
two of Anne’s claims
(C) presenting evidence that directly contradicts
Anne’s evidence
(D) offering an alternative explanation for the
evidence Anne cites
(E) undermining some of Anne’s evidence while
agreeing with her conclusion
3. Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.
Which one of the following most accurately
describes the role played in the argument by the
statement that zooplankton feed upon
phytoplankton?
(A) It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that
phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients.
(B) It is intended to provide an example of the
ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater
affects feeding habits.
(C) It helps show how global temperature changes
affect larger sea animals directly.
(D) It is offered as one reason that global warming
must be curtailed.
(E) It is offered in support of the idea that global
warming poses a threat to all organisms.
4. Nutritionist: Because humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture, it is clear that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods, consisting mainly of raw fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, lean meat, and seafood. Straying from this diet has often resulted in chronic illness and other physical problems. Thus, the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be. The claim that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods plays which one of the following roles in the nutritionist’s argument?
(A) It is a conclusion for which the only support
offered is the claim that straying from a diet
of wild foods has often resulted in chronic
illness and other physical problems.
(B) It is a premise for which no justification is
provided, but which is used to support the
argument’s main conclusion.
(C) It is a phenomenon for which the main
conclusion of the nutritionist’s argument is
cited as an explanation.
(D) It is an intermediate conclusion for which one
claim is offered as support, and which is used
in turn to support the argument’s main
conclusion.
(E) It is a premise offered in support of the claim
that humans have evolved very little since
the development of agriculture.
5. Ingrid: Rock music has produced no songs as durable as the songs of the 1940s, which
continue to be recorded by numerous performers.
Jerome: True, rock songs are usually recorded only
once. If the original recording continues to be popular, however, that fact can indicate
durability, and the best rock songs will prove to be durable.
Jerome responds to Ingrid’s claim by
(A) intentionally misinterpreting the claim
(B) showing that the claim necessarily leads to a
contradiction
(C) undermining the truth of the evidence that
Ingrid presents
(D) suggesting an alternative standard for judging
the point at issue
(E) claiming that Ingrid’s knowledge of the period
under discussion is incomplete
6. Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dogs, must conform to standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees. Those standards generally specify the physical appearance necessary for a dog to be recognized as belonging to a breed but stipulate nothing about other genetic traits, such as those that enable breeds originally developed as working dogs to perform the work for which they were developed. Since dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost, certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs. Therefore, pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs. The phrase “certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs” serves which one
of the following functions in the argument?
(A) It is a claim on which the argument depends
but for which no support is given.
(B) It is a subsidiary conclusion used in support of
the main conclusion.
(C) It acknowledges a possible objection to the
proposal put forth in the argument.
(D) It summarizes the position that the argument
as a whole is directed toward discrediting.
(E) It provides evidence necessary to support a
claim stated earlier in the argument.

Answer Key

Method of Reasoning Problem Answer Key

All answer keys in this book will indicate the source of the question by giving the month and year the
LSAT was originally administered, the Logical Reasoning section number, and the question number within
that section. Each LSAT has two Logical Reasoning sections, and so the Section 1 and Section 2
designators will refer to the first or second Logical Reasoning section in the test, not the physical section
number of the booklet.
Question #1. Method. December 2002 LSAT, Section 2, #8. The correct answer choice is (D)
The arguments of Jorge and Ruth can be analyzed as follows:
Jorge’s Argument
Premise: Rock music of the 1960s was created by and for people who were then in their teens
and early twenties.
Premise: You were just an infant then [in the 1960s].
Conclusion: You won’t be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s.
Ruth’s Argument
Premise: There are living writers who write well about ancient Roman culture, even though
those writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture.
Premise: Why should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a period
as recent as the 1960s?
Conclusion: Your reasoning is absurd.
Note that the question stem asks you to identify how Ruth responded. When two-speaker stimuli are
combined with Method of Reasoning questions, you are typically asked to identify the reasoning of only
one of the speakers (often the second speaker). However, you must still understand the argument of the
other speaker as the answer choices often refer to it.
Now let’s use the answer choices to discuss the structure of the argument.
Answer choice (A): Ruth does not challenge Jorge’s claim about her age. To the contrary, she seemingly
admits he is correct when she says “Why should my youth alone...”
Answer choice (B): Although Ruth uses an example that cites culture, she does not clarify a definition of
popular culture, and certainly not one left implicit in Jorge’s argument.
Answer choice (C): This is a Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The first part of the answer choice—“using
the example of classical culture”—does occur in Ruth’s response, but she does not use that example “in
order to legitimize contemporary culture as an object worthy of serious consideration.”
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. An analogy is a comparison between two items. In
argumentation, analogies are often used to clarify the relationship between the items or reveal a
fundamental truth about one of the items, as in “To better understand the operating system of your
computer, think of it as the brain of your system.” The use of “brain” in the preceding sentence is the
analogy.
Analogies can be used to challenge a position or support a position, but their strength often rests on the
relevant similarities between the two items or scenarios. In the next chapter we will discuss False
Analogies, where an author uses an analogy that is dissimilar enough to be nonapplicable.
As referenced in this answer choice, Ruth analogizes writing about Roman culture to writing about the
1960s to show that it is not unreasonable that someone who was an infant can write about that time period.
Jorge’s assumption is that if a person was not a teen or older during the 1960s, then they cannot write well
about the music of that period. Since all elements described in the answer choice occur and the answer
describes the method used by Ruth, this is the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): Ruth does not attack Jorge’s qualification to make his argument, just his
pronouncement that she will not be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s.
Question #2. Method-CE. June 2003 LSAT, Section 1, #4. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus in this problem appeared in Chapter Two as an example of a stimulus with two separate
speakers (however, no analysis was given at that time).
The arguments of Anne and Sue can be analyzed as follows:
Anne’s Argument
Premise: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared
brightly enough to be seen by telescope.
Premise: No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before.
Conclusion: Such a flare must be highly unusual.
Sue’s Argument
Premise: Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun.
Premise: This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very
carefully.
Conclusion: [Your conclusion is] Nonsense.
As is often the case with two-speaker stimuli, the speakers disagree. In this case, Anne uses causal
reasoning to indicate that the cause of the sighting is unusual activity with Halley’s comet:
FU = the flare is highly unusual
NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun
C E
FU-------------> NCO
Sue counters by citing an alternate cause: no one has been looking for such a flare.
NO = no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun
NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun
C E
NO-------------> NCO
The problem now becomes an exercise in figuring out how the test makers will describe the alternative
cause cited by Sue.
Answer choice (A): This answer quickly fails the Fact Test. Sue does not comment on tuhsee of the term
“observed” (other than to explain why the flare was observed).
Answer choice (B): Although Sue cites an explanation that is inconsistent with Anne’s claim, she does not
point out an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims
Answer choice (C): Remember, evidence is the same as premises. Does Sue contradict Anne’s premises?
No, she only contradicts her conclusion. Do not be drawn in by the word “nonsense.” That word is used to
attack the conclusion, not the premises of the argument.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. In this answer, the alternate cause is described as an
“alternative explanation.” In most cases, a causal counterargument can be described as offering an
alternative explanation.
Answer choice (E): This is a Reverse Answer. The answer appears as follows:
“undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion”
If the answer choice was reversed in the following manner, it would be correct:
“undermining her [Anne’s] conclusion while agreeing with some of Anne’s evidence ”
The evidence she agrees with is the first sentence of Anne’s argument (the premise in the second sentence
is not directly addressed).
Question #3. Method-AP, CE. October 2000 LSAT, Section 1, #15. The correct answer choice
is (C)
The argument is structured as follows:
Premise: A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata.
Premise: This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton.
Premise: Zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain.
Conclusion: Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming
eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations.
The conclusion in the first line is echoed again in the final sentence. The argument part referenced in the
question stem is a premise (note the use of the premise indicator “since” in the last line), and your answer
must indicate that the role played by the argument part is that of a premise.
Answer choice (A): The portion referenced in the question stem is not a hypothesis, but rather a statement
of fact.
Answer choice (B): The statement referenced in the question stem is not an example of the way the mixing
of seawater affects feeding habits, but rather another premise that is then combined with the vertical mixing
premise to help support the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The phrase “it helps show” describes a premise, and in this
case the premise is used to support a statement about the effect of temperature changes on fish and
seabirds.
Answer choice (D): The argument does not take a position that global warming should be curtailed.
Instead, the argument shows how small changes in sea temperature lead to population declines, and no
opinion of those effects is stated.
Answer choice (E): This is an Exaggerated Answer. The argument specifically indicates that fish and
seabirds populations will decline. This answer choices states that all organisms are threatened.

Method of Reasoning Problem

1. Jorge: You won’t be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s, since you were just an infant then. Rock music of the 1960s was created by and for people who were then in their teens and early twenties.
Ruth: Your reasoning is absurd. There are living writers who write well about ancient Roman
culture, even though those writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture.
Why should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a period as
recent as the 1960s?
Ruth responds to Jorge’s criticism by
(A) challenging his claim that she was not in her
teens or early twenties during the 1960s
(B) clarifying a definition of popular culture that is
left implicit in Jorge’s argument
(C) using the example of classical culture in order
to legitimize contemporary culture as an
object worthy of serious consideration
(D) offering an analogy to counter an unstated
assumption of Jorge’s argument
(E) casting doubt on her opponent’s qualification
to make judgments about popular culture
2. Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope. No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.
Sue: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.
Sue challenges Anne’s reasoning by
(A) pointing out that Anne’s use of the term
“observed” is excessively vague
(B) drawing attention to an inconsistency between
two of Anne’s claims
(C) presenting evidence that directly contradicts
Anne’s evidence
(D) offering an alternative explanation for the
evidence Anne cites
(E) undermining some of Anne’s evidence while
agreeing with her conclusion
3. Seemingly inconsequential changes in sea temperature due to global warming eventually result in declines in fish and seabird populations. A rise of just two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater from different strata. This restricts the availability of upwelling nutrients to phytoplankton. Since zooplankton, which feed upon phytoplankton, feed the rest of the food chain, the declines are inevitable.
Which one of the following most accurately
describes the role played in the argument by the
statement that zooplankton feed upon
phytoplankton?
(A) It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that
phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients.
(B) It is intended to provide an example of the
ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater
affects feeding habits.
(C) It helps show how global temperature changes
affect larger sea animals directly.
(D) It is offered as one reason that global warming
must be curtailed.
(E) It is offered in support of the idea that global
warming poses a threat to all organisms.

Method of Reasoning Argument Part Question Type Review

Argument Part (AP) questions are a specific subset of Method of Reasoning
questions. In Method-AP questions, the question stem cites a specific portion of
the stimulus and then asks you to identify the role that the cited portion plays in
the structure of the argument.
The stimuli that accompany Method-AP questions tend to be more complex
than the average LSAT stimulus.
Method-AP questions often feature two conclusions—a main conclusion and
subsidiary conclusion—where the main conclusion is typically placed in the
first or second sentence, and the last sentence contains the subsidiary
conclusion. In addition, the subsidiary conclusion is often preceded by a
conclusion indicator such as “thus” or “therefore” while the main conclusion is
not prefaced by an indicator.
One trick used by the test makers in Method-AP questions is to create wrong
answers that describe parts of the argument other than the part named in the
question stem.

Method of Reasoning Question Type Review

Method of Reasoning questions require you to select the answer choice that best
describes the method used by the author to make the argument. Structurally,
Method of Reasoning questions are simply abstract Must Be True questions:
instead of identifying the facts of the argument, you must identify the logical
organization of the argument.
As part of the First Family of Questions, Method of Reasoning questions
feature the following information structure:
1. You can use only the information in the stimulus to prove the correct
answer choice.
2. Any answer choice that describes information or a situation that does
not occur in the stimulus is incorrect.
The stimulus for a Method Reasoning question will contain an argument, and
the argument can contain either valid or invalid reasoning.
You must watch for the presence of the premise and conclusion indicators
discussed in Chapter Two.
Use the Fact Test to eliminate answers in a Method Reasoning question:
If an answer choice describes an event that did not occur in the stimulus,
then that answer is incorrect.
Several types of incorrect answers regularly appear in Method of Reasoning
questions:
1. “New” Element Answers
2. Half Right, Half Wrong Answers
3. Exaggerated Answers
4. The Opposite Answer
5. The Reverse Answer