Round 1: Mapping answers that describe arguments

In this maiden round, I’ll demo basic LSAT strategy, and focus specifically on how to work through answer choices in the Logical Reasoning section. Get ready for your grad level seminar in the process of elimination. Let’s do this!

Pull up PrepTest 140 in LawHub or another app you use to access the official practice tests. You can access this test with a free LawHub account if you don’t already have a subscription.

We’re going to walk through questions 2 and 3 in section 1. For most of you I’d probably recommend just following along with me, but feel free to try the questions on your own first if you’re feeling up to it.

Preptest 140, section 1, question 2
accountant: the newspaper industry…

Read the passage, then make sure you basically agree with my breakdown below.

MY BREAKDOWN: The accountant states that the “real threat” is circulation and advertising falling. So they’re saying the “cost of newsprint” is NOT a real threat. You could paraphrase this argument by saying something like, “Newspapers say profits are falling because of newsprint costs, but that’s not the problem. The problem is circulation and advertising.” Do we basically agree?

If we do, then give yourself a minute to take a look at the answers and see if one in particular looks good. Scroll for the rest of my explanation when you’re ready.

The prompt asks how the argument “proceeds”. That may still be an unfamiliar way for them to ask it, but they’re just telling us that the right answer will be an accurate description of the argument in the passage.

I’m hoping (D) looked really good to you. Let’s take it piece by piece.

(D) challenging an explanation…

When the accountant said that “the cost of newsprint is no more than it was ten years ago”, they were challenging that explanation given by the newspapers. So that part checks out.

(D) challenging an explanation… in order to introduce a different explanation

The accountant went on to say what the “real threats” were. They were introducing a different explanation, that the problem for newspapers is really circulation and advertising.

I hope you weren’t caught up on “a phenomenon”. That’s a super generic term like “events” or “trends” that can refer to almost anything that happens. In this case, the accountant said they were explaining “falling profits”. For clarity, you should recognize that’s the “phenomenon” (D) is talking about.

Now let’s make sure we agree that even if (D) didn’t blow your hair back, you still had really good reasons to eliminate the other four. Keep focused on what the prompt told us to look for in the right answer: we need an accurate description of the argument.

(A) reinterpreting a popular analogy…

An analogy is a kind of comparison, right? It’s when you highlight a similarity between two things that seem really different, like “LSAT prep is like sports, it’s more about knowing how to do it than knowing what to do.” Is there a comparison like that in this passage? Definitely not.

(B) using economic data to raise doubts…

This part is okay. The passage cites “costs” and “inflation”, which for sure counts as using economic data. And the accountant is raising doubts about the newspapers’ explanation.

(B) using economic data to raise doubts about the current effectiveness of a historically accepted approach

An approach is not the same as an explanation, which is what the accountant gives in the passage. An approach would be like a plan, proposal, some kind of action.

Also, there’s no discussion of the current effectiveness of anything. Only the accuracy of an explanation. And there’s no mention of what’s historically accepted. Right answers simply CANNOT use wording like this unless it reflects statements made in the passage.

(C) criticizing a newly developed method by demonstrating that a conventional method shows better results

Do you see any mention of a method in the passage, or any mention of that method being new? Good, me neither. There was nothing about better results in there either.

(E) calling into question a justification for a practice…

Interesting wording. A justification can be equivalent to an explanation, so that might be okay. But “falling profits” isn’t a practice, it’s a result. A practice has to be something someone actively does, not just an outcome of what they do.

(D) is the correct answer.

Do you see how picky we’re being about the exact wording of the answer choices? And that getting super technical about wording is exactly what lawyers are expected to be experts in? This is a potentially huge moment for your LSAT score.

You’re going to be this level of careful about checking the wording of all the answers going forward. You’re basically mapping everything stated in the answer to what’s stated in the passage. On harder ones it can get abstract, but you NEVER add in your own reasoning. The connection has to be direct.

As we move on to other questions, I’m going to move away from just explaining questions and start applying LSAT strategy the way it’s meant to be. This is so no one starts developing bad habits. Most people I work with pick up all three parts of LSAT strategy as they practice without much trouble. But check out this overview if you want to download basic LSAT strategy to your brain first.

Preptest 140, section 1, question 3
peter: recent evidence…

PROMPT: How will the right answer relate to the argument?

On the last question I pointed out that the prompt told us that the right answer would accurately describe the argument in the passage. That’s an example of a good answer to the question above. You’ll get a LOT better at answering this question quickly and clearly with some practice, but for today just know that answering this question when you check the prompt is the best way to avoid a mistake when you’re reading the answers later.

This prompt asks for the answer that “accurately expresses a flaw”. Let’s agree that means the right answer will accurately describe the argument again. This time it’s gonna describe something wrong with the argument, but for now don’t worry if you don’t catch it while you’re reading the passage.

PASSAGE: Tag the conclusion/s and support

If you’re unsure of the argument structure in this passage, use “Thus” to help you see it more clearly. It’s set up like this:

Peter: [BACKGROUND]. In particular, [SUPPORT]. Thus, [CONCLUSION].

Peter cites beneficial effects of “moderate” alcohol consumption, but concludes that alcohol is beneficial “on balance”. That would mean it’s beneficial overall. Just because moderate consumption has benefits doesn’t mean alcohol is beneficial overall, so that’s definitely a flaw.

ANSWERS: Carefully map the wording of the answers to the passage

(A) …because they believe it is beneficial…

(B) …based on popular belief…

The argument only hinges on whether alcohol is actually beneficial. There is nothing stated or implied about what people believe.

(C) It fails to consider methods…that do not involve alcohol.

There’s no comparison between consuming alcohol and not consuming alcohol in the passage. Only an evaluation of whether alcohol is beneficial. So it’s just not relevant whether you can get the same benefits without drinking.

(D) It draws a conclusion about alcohol consumption in general from a premise about moderate alcohol consumption.

Love that. It brings up the shift from moderate to overall. The wording all matches the statements in the passage, and it doesn’t bring in anything new the passage didn’t talk about.

(E) It fails to consider that alcohol may have no effect on many bacteria…

Okay, so this is true. It doesn’t consider that. But even if there are many bacteria that have no effect, that doesn’t conflict with Peter’s evidence that “certain” bacteria cause illness. Those can both be true, so that’s not a flaw in Peter’s reasoning.

(D) is the correct answer.

I really want to highlight again that most of the work is being really careful that ALL the wording in your answer lines up with statements made in the passage.

The big takeaway: Avoid common mistakes by carefully mapping the wording of the answers to the wording of the passage

The most common mistake everyone makes on the LSAT is settling for answers that “seem to make the most sense.” I can’t be any clearer about this: that is NOT how you’re supposed to do it. Read the test instructions again if you’re not sure.

Mapping the wording of the answers to the wording of the passage is how you avoid that mistake. Only right answers will have wording that all maps. This will work on every question, but it takes practice to get really good at it.

Common LSAT patterns we saw in this round:

• There are usually 3-5 of these “flaw” questions in every section, which makes them one of the most common questions on the LSAT. The flaws are crazy repetitive, so with practice you’ll start recognizing a lot of them. A lot of these prompts use the phrase “vulnerable to criticism” but that’s the exact same question.
• We also worked on a less common “proceeds by” question (a/k/a “describe” or “method of argument” questions), but those still fit the pattern of having answers that describe the argument. There’s one more type on LR with descriptive answers, which asks for the “role” a certain statement in the passage plays. Expect one of each of these per section, although sometimes there are two and sometimes none.

In the next round we’ll practice more mapping with answers that describe arguments. Its gonna be a good time, see you then!

The plan will work if you do.