Conclusions can’t use stronger wording than the support uses

Let’s start with a quick refresh on LSAT strategy: On Logical Reasoning, the procedural part starts with checking the prompt before reading the passage. It looks like this:

1. Check the prompt for how the right answer will relate to the argument. You know the answer will generally either describe the support and/or conclusion in the passage, or it will be support or a conclusion that fits into the passage.
2. Read the passage and tag each statement as either conclusion, support, or background. You know conclusions get support from other statements, and background doesn’t give or get support. It’s just there for context or clarity.
3. Carefully map the wording of the answer choices to the wording of the passage. You know everything stated in every right answer will align to statements made in the passage, so anything that doesn’t gets confidently eliminated.

Got it? Let’s do this!

*PrepTest 140 is available for FREE on LawHub even if you don’t have a subscription or access through another prep app.

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.

I hope you can see how keeping the focus on the strength of the wording makes working your way through a really wordy list of answer choices a much simpler process that you feel a lot more confident about. If you’re feeling good about that, get psyched! You’re gonna be a good lawyer.

The big takeaway: Right answers will always fix conclusions that use stronger wording than the support uses

Common patterns in this question:

• Some questions ask for support that “most” strengthens or justifies the conclusion. But this one wants support that 100% proves the conclusion. They’ll use the phrase “follows logically” or “properly inferred” to describe the conclusion on these, which test prep companies usually call “sufficient assumption” questions.
• Valid conclusions can’t use stronger wording than their support uses. Right answers will address this every time you see it, so train yourself not to miss it. Strong wording that makes conclusions sus includes “likely”, “probably”, “most”, “all”, and don’t sleep on “must” or “should” either. The support probably doesn’t back up wording that extreme.
• You’ll always know something must be true or happening when the support in the passage is a combo of an if-then rule and a fact that says the “if” condition is true or happening. That something is the necessary or “then” condition in the rule.

The plan will work if you do.