3. ACE THE LOGICAL REASONING SECTION

You want to be a lawyer, right? So you should love arguments! And the logical reasoning section is nothing except handling arguments.

While there's only one reading comprehension and one games section that will count toward your final score, TWO logical reasoning sections will count, so you should spend twice as much time practicing these questions.

The main tip we can give you is to remember, above everything else, that you must ONLY consider what is said in the argument you are given. Yes, you may be asked to prove a blatantly false argument, but welcome to LSAT Land. The test-writers don't care about whether you agree or disagree; they only want to see if you're able to see where the weaknesses in the arguments lay. So read every question VERY carefully.

The secret to acing the logical reasoning section is to realize that almost every question is trying to find out how well you can find "assumption gaps."

  • Assumptions gaps: An assumption is when an arguer makes a logical leap without explaining it; he/she just "assumes" that you'll accept a particular hidden part of the argument as true. Your job will be to uncover the assumption. For instance:

Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other colors. If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because

So before you even see the choices, you know that you're looking for the hole in the argument.

These assumption questions make up the VAST majority of the LSAT. There are lots of different ways of asking about assumptions. Here are some common phrases:

LSAT question: Your job: The argument depends on which of the assumptions below? Find the assumption. Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument? Recognize the assumption, and find the opposite of it in the choices. Which of the following is the error in the arguer's reasoning? Recognize the assumption, and translate that into a general logical principle. Which of the following must be true for the argument to be correct? Find the assumption. Which of the following is the argument's logical conclusion? Recognize the assumption and its logical extension. Which of the following would strengthen the argument? Pick the piece of evidence that supports the assumption the strongest. Which of the following would weaken the argument? Pick the piece of evidence that destroys the assumption the best. The argument is flawed because: Find the assumption.

Which of the following, if known, would support the argument the best?

Find the assumption.

We could go on and on. The point is, you will always be a step ahead if you search for the argument's central assumption. The way to solve these is to:

  1. Identify the set-up.
  2. Identify the conclusion.
  3. Figure out what must be true to get from the set-up to the conclusion.

"EXCEPT" questions: Those LSAT-writers are tricky they will often present you with an argument and tell you that all five options are correct EXCEPT for one which you have to find. These can be intimidating, because you have to think backwards -- but they're just the same as normal assumption questions.

Let's go back to the question above:

Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other colors. If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:

The central assumption is that because red cars are in more accidents, then removing red cars would remove the accidents. Before you even look at the choices, you have a "feeling" that this is a flawed argument. These might be some of the flaws you noticed:

  1. Just because red cars are in more accidents doesn't mean that they are death-causing accidents.
  2. Bad drivers might prefer flashy red cars, so if you take red cars away, the bad drivers will still be out there causing accidents.

So let's look at the possible choices:

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:

A) Accepts without question that insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums for higher risk clients.

B) Fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to repair as cars of other colors.

C) Ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars.

D) Does not specify precisely what percentage of red cars are involved in accidents.

E) Makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life.

So what's the answer? Let's go through one by one:

A) This has nothing to do with the conclusion that removing red cars would save lives. It's not the answer.

B) This has nothing to do with the conclusion that removing red cars would save lives. It's not the answer.

C) Hmm this IS a problem with the argument. The argument does not acknowledge that bad drivers prefer red cars, so getting rid of red cars won't help.

D) It doesn't matter what the exact percentage is. Higher is higher. It's not the answer.

E) It never says that EVERY accident results in loss of life. It's not the answer.

So there you go! The answer is C.

A quick hint: be wary of the words every, never, all, always, and none. They usually indicate a wrong answer, because nothing is that simple.

There are some other types of questions in the arguments section, including:

  • Parallel reasoning: You will be given an argument and asked which of a series of presented arguments most resembles the logic of the original.

  • Argumentative techniques: You may be asked to recognize how someone responds to an argument (for instance, attacking the character of the arguer instead of the content of the argument, citing a specific example to counter a general claim, responding to a factual statement with an emotional claim). Here, you just have to (say it with us), find the assumption and figure out how the technique gets around it.

At the risk of being repetitive, all you have to do is identify the assumption, and you're 95% home free.