Round 8: Practice mapping answers that give support

Let’s do this! Go wherever you access official LSAT’s and open up PrepTest 140, Section 2. This test is included with a free LawHub account if you don’t already have a subscription.

In this round we’re going to practice more prompts whose right answers give support for the conclusion in the passage. You can scroll ahead for my walkthroughs of course, but I challenge you to take a look through the section first and see if you can find the ones we’re talking about.

🔎There are 4 you should find, although you may find yourself unsure about a few. So let’s agree that while “an assumption required by the argument” is technically support, those answers don’t add support that the author isn’t already assuming. Let’s focus on prompts that tell you the answer is adding support for the conclusion.

Preptest 140, section 2, question 1
The quantity and type of pollution…

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

We got one right off the bat! If the answer is going to “justify” the argument, that definitely means it will be support for the conclusion in the passage. The prompt also says it’s a “principle”. On the LSAT that’s just some generic rule, but it doesn’t change how the answer will relate to the argument.

PASSAGE: Tag the conclusion/s and support

[BACKGROUND]. But [SUPPORT], [CONCLUSION: “unless…, we cannot…”].

The first sentence is just background. The author’s arugment starts at “But..” And make sure you agree the conclusion is that whole statement starting from “unless”: We need stronger evidence to impose the penalty for pollution on the auto shop. That’s what the right answer will support.

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

(A) The more severe the penalty…, the more certain one must be…

I hope that sounds a LOT like the conclusion to you, since it’s mirroring the exact same two pieces of reasoning. If the penalty is super severe, you gotta be super sure you got the right perp.

On test day you might be happy picking this and moving on, but here of course we’ll check the others to make sure we’re confident eliminating them.

(B) Penalties for crimes should be severe enough to deter people…

Deterrence isn’t mentioned or referenced anywhere, so that wording is not okay unless it’s clearly relevant based only on common sense…which it’s not. Info about deterrence doesn’t support a conclusion about punishment. Eliminated.

(C) The severity of the penalty…should be proportional to the harm…

I could see how you’d think this makes sense based on your own assessment of the info about pollution in the passage, but it doesn’t actually say anything about the harm caused. Again, the conclusion is only focused on justifying punishment, so this wording doesn’t map. Out of scope. However you say it, it’s not support for the conclusion.

(D) The more severe the penalty…, the less likely it is that someone will come forward…

Getting a confession isn’t mentioned or referenced anywhere. This wording doesn’t map to the passage, so it doesn’t support the conclusion.

(E) …one can never be sufficiently certain…

Whoa too strong! You caught that right? Extreme wording like “never” will only show up in right answers when it reflects similarly strong wording in the passage. That’s a no go here.

(A) is the correct answer.

The round is off to a great start, let’s keep it going. Where’s the next one that asks for support?

Preptest 140, section 2, question 4
Physician: Stories of people…

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

This “strengthen” prompt has the most common wording asking for support for the conclusion. Let’s tag the conclusion and support in the passage, then find the answer that adds the most support to that argument.

PASSAGE: Tag the conclusion/s and support

Physician: [BACKGROUND]. But [CONCLUSION]. [SUPPORT].

Again we see this pattern where the first sentence is background and the argument starts with “But”. That word can signal conclusion or support though, so be sure you agree that the last sentence is supporting the “But…” statement, so that’s what we’ll tag as the conclusion.

The conclusion is basically that stories about health problems following vaccinations are not a concern, because we should expect that to happen “by coincidence”.

It’s pretty important to catch that this claim it’s coincidental is baked into the conclusion, even though there is NO support given for it being a coincidence. That’s what I’d expect to see the right answer give support for.

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

(A) …vaccines that were recently introduced.

Be careful, this answer is begging you to add in your own superfluous reasoning. That’s against the rules on the LSAT. Whether vaccines are new or not never comes up in the passage, so this wording doesn’t map to the support or conclusion. It might make sense that newer vaccines are more likely to cause problems, but that isn’t relevant to the conclusion’s assumption that it’s coincidence.

(B) …even if people are not vaccinated, they are unlikely…

The passage is only concerned with the effects of getting vaccinated. The un-vaxxed folks aren’t in this passage, so the wording of this answer absolutely doesn’t map. No support for the conclusion here.

(C) People are no more likely, on average, to develop serious health problems shortly after…than shortly before receiving vaccinations.

This could be a little confusing, so let’s clarify a thing or two. If vaccinations are a concern, it’s because they increase the risk of getting serious health problems. But the conclusion says they’re not a concern, which would be justified if vaccinations do NOT increase the risk of serious health problems. Agree? Because that’s exactly what (C) is saying. If vaccinations don’t make problems more likely, then the conclusion is probably right about it being a coincidence. Strengthened. Boom.

(D) …more serious than the health problems that the vaccines were intended to prevent.

Whoa that comparison comes out of nowhere! The passage is definitely NOT concerned with comparing the health problems caused by vaccines and the health problems they protect against. I hope you agree that wording doesn’t map to any statements made in the passage.

(E) …after taking other medications,…due to the medications.

Medications? Whaa?! You’re a lawyer now, so you wouldn’t ever read “medications” but think it said “vaccinations”. That’s pretty clearly not the same thing, so this answer isn’t relevant to this passage.

(C) is the correct answer.

We’re cookin’ now, so let’s go to the next one that asks us to add support.

Preptest 140, section 2, question 15
Letter to the editor:…

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

I hope this one was fairly recognizable to you, since the prompt says the right answer will be the one that “most supports the argument”. Next let’s tag the conclusion and support stated in the passage, then find the answer that fits in best with those statements.

PASSAGE: Tag the conclusion/s and support

Letter to the editor: [BACKGROUND: “You say…”]. Yet [SUPPORT]. So [CONCLUSION].

You want to recognize that the passage starts with an outside perspective, and that almost always means the author is gonna disagree. Which is exactly what happens. Basically the argument is that confiscating burglars’ wages is justified because the money will be used to compensate victims. Is that a good enough reason to confiscate their wages? The passage doesn’t say, so I’d anticipate the right answer telling us it is.

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

(A) Money stolen from a burglar should be given to that burglar’s victims.

Ooh, close but no cigar. The conclusion isn’t trying to justify giving the money to victims, which is what this answer supports. The conclusion wants to justify confiscating the money in the first place, which this answer takes for granted.

(B) Burglars are obligated…

Does the conclusion or support say anything about the obligations of burglars? Not a word. It’s the government’s actions that the argument is trying to justify.

The passage also doesn’t say it has to be the “same” individuals, so you were right on if that’s what bothered you about this one.

(C) The motive…determines whether or not that action is justified.

Did the word “motive” throw you off? That maps pretty clearly to the support saying the money will be used to compensate victims. Compensating victims is “the motive.” So I love that. And whether it’s justified is the exact subject of the conclusion. Winner!

(D) A crime is justified…

Who’s justifying “a crime”? Nobody. Don’t add in an assumption that stealing must always be a crime. That wording doesn’t map to the passage. If you read the rest of this, then maybe you agree that “only” and “people who deserve compensation” don’t map to anything stated in the passage either.

(E) Stealing is never justified…

One more time: we’re not justifying stealing, we’re justifying compensating the victims of stealing. And “never” is wayyy too extreme to make sense anyway.

(C) is the correct answer.

Let’s do one more for this round. Did you find the last one that has support for the conclusion in the right answer? It’s a slightly different flavor of prompt, so if you’re still new to this no sweat if you didn’t catch it.

Preptest 140, section 2, question 22
If the budget does…

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

Let’s think about what this one is asking. They expect you to know that “The conclusion follows logically” means it’s 100% supported. Like, totally proven, with no wiggle room. That definitely means the right answer will be support for the conclusion. But this prompt adds a higher standard for the right answer than just being the one that “most” supports the conclusion.

(For clarity, test prep companies typically call this a “sufficient assumption” question. In any case, keep your focus on support and conclusions, and how the right answer relates to the argument, and you’ll never be confused about all these details. Don’t forget the LSAT is not nearly as complicated as they make it seem.)

PASSAGE: Tag the conclusion/s and support

[SUPPORT]. [SUPPORT]. Consequently, [CONCLUSION].

Straight forward structure in this passage, but a couple of important semi-advanced pattern showed up there that I want to point out to you. The first piece of support is an if-then rule, and the next piece of support says the “if” part of the rule is actually happening. So you know the “then” part is also happening. Okay with that?

So you know that most of the dairies won’t meet the standards, and thus the wastes “can” seep out. Based on that support, the conclusion says the “water is likely to become polluted.” This is the more valuable pattern to spot. The conclusion is using stronger wording than the support, right? You can’t validly conclude that something is “likely” based only on the fact that it “can” happen. If the right answer is going to prove this conclusion 100%, it has to close that gap. Let’s find one that does.

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

(A) …it is unlikely that most of the district’s drinking water will become polluted.

This is arriving at the opposite conclusion as our author, so I hope you don’t think this could possibly prove what we want it to. We don’t care what happens if they meet federal standards, since only the scenario where they mostly don’t meet standards maps to the statements in the passage.

(B) To keep all the drinking water in the district clean requires…

Do we need “all” the drinking water to stay clean? Nope. The conclusion is specifically concerned about “most” of the water, so this answer doesn’t really map. Based on this answer, the district could get away with not hiring more inspectors and still only have a little bit of water get polluted.

(C) All of the district’s water is likely to become polluted only if all…

It could be okay for the answer to prove that “all” of the water will become polluted, since that would clearly cover the conclusion about “most” of the water. But we don’t know that “all” of the dairies will fail the standards, only “most” again. So the passage doesn’t tell us if this rule is what’s actually happening. And that means it can’t support this conclusion.

(D) Most of the district’s drinking water is likely to become polluted if most of the large dairies…

This answer is a poster child for mapping. Do you see how every word of this maps to the wording of the passage, without bringing in anything new or irrelevant? This is closing the gap in the passage by connecting the support we have about most dairies not meeting standards to the conclusion about most of the water becoming polluted. Boom.

(E) If none of the dairies…

Clearly too extreme, right? Who cares if “none” of the dairies meets standards, since that doesn’t map to the wording used in the passage. That’s just not the same as the situation we’re analyzing in this argument.

(D) is the correct answer.

How are you feeling about finding answers that support the conclusion? It’s going to be a worth a healthy handful of points on test day, so this is a question type worth building real confidence about.

The big takeaway: Always carefully tag the passage and map the answers when the prompt asks for support

LSAT prep is pretty much one big exercise in analyzing how support and conclusions fit together. If you’re feeling just a little bit better about that after this round, then get psyched! Your score is going up right now.

Common patterns we saw in this round:

• The difference between prompts that ask for an answer that strengthens the conclusion and prompts that ask for an answer that make the conclusion “follow logically” or “properly inferred” are another example of the key difference between “must” and “most.” Part of checking the prompt is knowing if it says something “must” be or if it just says something “most” does a thing. We saw that same difference between “most supported” and “must be true” prompts that ask for conclusions too.
• Don’t take the LSAT until you can spot a conclusion that uses stronger wording than the rest of the passage every single time it happens with no exceptions. It’s as simple as that. That’s what the right answer will talk about in every instance of this pattern.
• On the other hand, don’t get too caught up with if-then rules, since they don’t come up much and appear on highly hackable questions. That said, it is a very good idea to be able to recognize when the facts say the sufficient condition is actually happening, since it tells you the necessary condition must also be happening. If you’re unclear on the lingo, it’s probably worth brushing up.

BONUS FAQ! Since I’ve now gone over most of the major flavors of prompts, I’d like to address a super common question: What are all the ways right answers on LR relate to the argument? Let’s breakdown all of the prompts in this section and see:

Right answer is support for the conclusion in the passage: 1, 4, 15, 22 (what we just did)

Right answer is still support, but it’s already baked in to the passage (a/k/a “necessary assumption”): 6, 10, 20, 25

Right answer is still support, but for the opposite of the conclusion (a/k/a “weaken”): 12,19

Right answer is still support, but for a conclusion in the prompt: 7, 13

Right answer is a conclusion supported by the passage: 2, 5, 14, 18, 21

Right answer describes support and/or conclusion: 3, 8, 9, 11, 16, 24, 26

Right answer is a whole new argument, but with the same kind of support and conclusion: 17, 23

This isn’t truly comprehensive since not every flavor of prompt appears in every section, but you can still see the whole ballgame here: right answers almost always either describe the support and/or conclusion, or they are support or a conclusion.

The plan will work if you do.