Round 7: Tagging passages when the answers are support

Let’s do this! We’re still working on PrepTest 140, so get that pulled up wherever you access official LSAT’s. This test is included with a free LawHub account if you don’t already have a subscription.

I’m going to start this round with question 6. If you’re an LSAT vet, give that one a pass on your own before reviewing. Otherwise just follow along with me and I’ll walk us through it, following the same procedure as always of course.

Preptest 140, section 1, question 6
A recent taste test reveals…

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

What “strengthens” conclusions? You got it, support does (a/k/a “premises” or “evidence”). This prompt tells you the right answer will be support for the conclusion in the passage.

PASSAGE: Tag the conclusion/s and support

A recent taste test reveals [BACKGROUND]. [MORE BACKGROUND]. Chemists point out [SUPPORT]. Hence, [CONCLUSION].

The passage starts with background explaining how this taste test went down. Did you notice that the passage is comparing low-fat chocolate ice cream to low-fat vanilla? Most people like the chocolate as much as the full-fat, but low-fat vanilla has a “harsher taste” than the full-fat. It’s actually kind of a nested comparison with the fat and the flavors getting compared, but you’re a lawyer, so all those moving pieces don’t confuse you one bit, right?

The point is that comparisons make up one of the two or three most common argument patterns on the whole test. If you can spot wording like “more/less than” or “as much as” like this passage uses, the answer probably has to do with that comparison.

The author’s conclusion is that “complexity” probably explains why people are cool with low-fat chocolate but not low-fat vanilla. Why? The support says because “chocolate is a very complex flavor.” Huh. That’s funny. I thought we were comparing chocolate to vanilla, but I don’t see anything about the complexity of vanilla. We definitely need that to agree that complexity explains the difference. With that in mind, Can you anticipate what wording the support in the right answer might have?

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

(A) Most people prefer full-fat chocolate ice cream to full-fat vanilla ice cream.

Okay cool, but the passage isn’t worried at all about whether people like chocolate or vanilla better. Only people’s preferences for full-fat vs. low-fat gets measured in the taste tests.

(B) The subjects of previous tests were not informed…

So what? The passage doesn’t mention whether people know what they’re eating, and you would have to add in your own assumption about why that’s relevant to make this support the conclusion. Don’t do that! Being “informed” doesn’t map to any statements made in the passage.

(C) The more distinct compounds…, the better people like it.

I see how you might like this one, but the conclusion is specifically about masking “the lack of fat.” Just because more complex means more tasty doesn’t support complexity explaining the difference in the taste test results.

(D) Vanillla is…less complex…than chocolate

Boom! This is the only answer that completes the comparison, and of course it also maps to the conclusion and the support’s focus on “complexity”. This is exactly the support we anticipated seeing. I think we’re good here.

(E) Most people are aware…

What most people are aware of doesn’t come up in the passage. What statement would this map to? That’s right, it wouldn’t. So this really doesn’t support the conclusion.

(D) is the correct answer.

Let’s move on to one most people find more challenging. It’s the only other “strengthen” question in this section, so I bet you can find it on your own before you scroll and walk through it with me.

Preptest 140, section 1, question 12
Climatologist: Over the coming…

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

It’s actually pretty unusual that this section only has two “strengthen” prompts. The next section of PrepTest 140 has three, and its last LR section has seven of them. Somewhere in between there has been most common in recent years. No matter what, you’ll recognize that the right answer will give support for the conclusion every time.

PASSAGE: Tag the conclusion/s and support

Climatologist: [BACKGROUND]. [SUPPORT]. Therefore, [CONCLUSION].

The first sentence is background, but the argument has definitely started once the author says something “will cause” another thing. You gotta catch it whenever a passage says there’s cause-and-effect. It’s a super common pattern and it’s not our first practice round seeing it. The chain of cause-and-effect continues right into the conclusion: “the mountain snowpack will probably melt…, leading to greater…” That’s what we need to find support for in the right answer.

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

(A) …increase in the average amount of annual precipitation…

This doesn’t say anything about the snowpack melting OR the greater spring flooding, so even casual mapping says this one ain’t so hot. Also, lawyers will note that the passage talked about the “proportion” of precipitation that’s rain vs. snow, but the “average amount” of precipitation never comes up. Those are not the same.

(B) …after relatively mild winters, the melting of snowpacks has led to greater spring flooding…

I’ve had many people in coaching sessions tell me they eliminated this one because they thought “other mountainous regions” was irrelevant. But what does the passage say kickstarted the cause-and-effect chain? “global warming”. They expect you to know that means the same effect would be happening in other regions.

Otherwise, the quoted wording above maps just beautifully to the background about warmer winter temps, and to both parts of the conclusion. If this is true it definitely supports the cause-and-effect the author claimed in the conclusion. Perfection.

(C) On average…

Again, “on average” is a different kind of data from what’s mentioned in the passage. If that didn’t bother you, then the comparison between different areas of the Rocky Mountains should have, since that doesn’t map to any comparison made in the passage. It also jumps to the “less storable water” bit but doesn’t make it clear that it’s because of the snowpack melting, so it doesn’t really align to the cause-and-effect in the conclusion anyway.

(D) On average, in the regions of the world with the mildest…

“On average” again I don’t like. But also be careful with what this says: “mildest winters” is changing the subject. The passage only says the temps are “likely to increase”, but doesn’t say anything like mild-est. Answers that use superlatives and extremes like that will only map to passages that use the same extreme wording.

(E) The larger a mountain snowpack is…

Please stop reading at “The larger…” There is no mention of the size of the snowpack, let alone whether it’s getting bigger.

(B) is the correct answer.

How’d that go for ya? That one was Level 3 difficulty, but I hope you’re seeing that staying focused and carefully applying strategy are still the only ingredients for getting the points.

The big takeaway: When the answers are support, tag a common argument pattern or map answers to the conclusion and key support

Recognizing patterns is like rocket fuel for your approach, especially on harder questions. But you still deserve all the points if you stay focused on accurately tagging support and conclusion, and carefully mapping the wording of the answers.

Common patterns we saw in this round:

• LSAT arguments make all kinds of comparisons. The one in this round was a classic incomplete comparison, right? It gave info about the complexity of chocolate but left out info about the complexity of vanilla.
• This was at least our second round already with an argument claiming cause-and-effect. Many of these questions will be more straight forward than the global-warming-in-the-Rockies number we went over. But notice how being really picky about mapping all the wording in each answer still left us with only one that fit both the conclusion and the support given in the passage.

The plan will work if you do.