Must be true/assumption (A stem that asks “what must be true in order to draw this conclusion?” is indirectly asking “what is the central assumption?” Treat it like any other assumption question)

how to find assumptions:

1. Denial test Deny the choice (alleged assumption), if the argument falls apart then it is the assumption

. If choice (D) were false, what effect would it have on the argument? What can be an assumption?

Alternative explanation/scenario not considered by author Since the author did not consider that possibility/alternative/scenario, the author

just assumed that possibility not to exist or that scenario not to be true. This is something the author is assuming so it can be an ASSUMPTION of the passage.

An assumption is a piece of information that is necessary to an argument. An outside the scope statement is a statement that is irrelevant to an argument. Therefore, if a choice is outside the scope of the argument, it need not be assumed.

1. Denial test When the denial of a choice counters the argument, then that choice is something that the author has assumed. When in doubt,try the denial test to check an assumption. If you negate the choice in question, and the argument still holds, then that choice is NOT correct. However, if the argument falls apart, then it’s the answer we seek. 21. (D) The author’s conclusion only works if (D) is true: if there’s no third language from which these two languages got the word “dog.” If you don’t see that, try the denial test — the best way of seeing whether something is in fact being assumed. If (D) were false, what effect would it have on the argument? If there were some third language from which English and Mbarbaram borrowed the word “dog,” then that would blow apart the author’s conclusion that these similarities can arise without language borrowing having occurred. In this case, language borrowing would have occurred, but indirectly, via a third language. When the denial of a choice counters the argument, then that choice is something that the author has assumed.

2. Alternative explanation to a conclusion

An assumption made by the author can be very often a possibility/alternative explaination that the author has not considered. Since the author did not consider that possibility/alternative/scenario, the author just assumed that possibility not to exist or that scenario not to be true. This is something the author is assuming so it can be an ASSUMPTION of the passage. The author assumes that the lobsters she cites in her evidence were hungry lobsters. If they weren’t hungry, then she has no business trampling on the marine biologists’ theory. Assumptions by definition are the unstated links between evidence and conclusion. That a You’ve already identified the conclusion and the evidence. Why shouldn’t universities have the right to patent faculty inventions? Because the right might be abused; the university might serve its own interests instead of the public interest by suppressing new discoveries and inventions until it can obtain a patent, and a university should promote knowledge of new inventions, not hide them for any reason. To say that anyone should not be given a right because they might abuse it is to assume that at least some people will abuse it. That’s the heart of what correct choice (D) says. university should not have the right to patent faculty inventions.

An assumption made by the author can be very often a possibility/alternative explaination that the author has not considered So what’s the author assuming? Well, she tells us that peer review is the only way that the information can be okayed, then concludes that the public has to wait until a medical journal has published the findings. But what if there’s some other way that findings can undergo peer review? If this were true, then the author’s conclusion would be invalidated. Yes, that’s the denial test, presented in a sneaky way An assumption is a piece of information that is necessary to an argument. An outside the scope statement is a statement that is irrelevant to an argument. Therefore, if a choice is outside the scope of the argument, it need not be assumed.

Draw conclusion An inferred conclusion, must take account of the overall movement of the passage; it must reflect where the author is going with the argument. Choices that give additional premises or elaborate premise cannot be a conclusion Elaborating premise not equal to conclusion Watch out for choices that overemphasize details. (D) just repeats the topic, while adding the idea of “common sense” gleaned from the last line, which gives us no idea of the point of the argument.

Inference An inference must be true based on the stimulus. And in a large number of cases on the LSAT, the correct answer will be the contrapositive (x then y, not x then not y) of something the stimulus author stated.

Weaken What’s the best way to weaken an argument? The best way to weaken an argument is

1. weaken a central assumption, or 2. to provide an alternative explanation for the conclusion. 3. Statement that simply supports opposite of conclusion

Another way to weaken an argument is to look for the choice that would directly negate the conclusion. In this case, ask yourself: “Which choice makes me believe that users would not be better served if the library bought only paperbacks?” (D) should then jump out. Some arguments are weakened by challenging the author’s central assumption. Others, like this one, can be weakened by a statement that simply supports the opposite of the conclusion. So the author says the elective surgeries were unnecessary? Choice (A) makes them seem very necessary weaken a central assumption the central assumption is that these “genetically determined abnormalities” that afflict purebred dogs are a serious problem. Without that assumption, there’d be no reason for him to argue that potential dog owners should choose nonpurebred dogs in order to avoid having to pay for the expensive surgery needed to correct these abnormalities. If (A) is true, if the abnormalities don’t seriously harm the dog, then the surgery is an unnecessary expense and potential dog owners needn’t worry about having to avoid it. provide an alternative explanation for the conclusion.

This question is a classic example of the latter strategy. We’re told that deforestation in Melonia was significantly lower this year than in other years — and reliable proof is offered in the form of satellite photographs. The government of Melonia (land of melon?), having spent lots of money to enforce antideforestation laws, is quick to take credit for the drop in forest destruction. How can we weaken the government’s claim? Look for an alternative explanation, like choice (B). If it’s true that the rainfall during burning season was abnormally heavy, then it’s very possible that the drop in deforestation had nothing to do with the government — it had to do with the rainfall instead. If this were the case, the government’s claim would be substantially weakened.

if the piece of timber appears to have been salvaged from an earlier settlement, then its usefulness as a guide to the age of the particular settlement in this stimulus becomes doubtful. Strengthen How to strengthen an argument?

1. One of the surest ways to strengthen an argument is to shore up a central assumption. How NOT to strengthen an argument?

Elaborating on the premise/evidence Strengthen the assumption the author makes. (not hunting population increase) Further elaborating (deers damage vehicles, deers chew shrubs/plant) on the evidence already given (deers are damaging property) is not as strong as strengthening the assumption • Make sure you strengthen the right argument, that is, the one that’s on the page. As stated above, many of the wrong choices lend support to arguments/conclusions other than the one the author is making. This is why it’s important to keep the author’s conclusion firmly in mind while you evaluate the choices. Resolve paradox

1. Eliminate choices that offers information on only one of the two groups

2. Eliminate choices that further confound 3. In resolve-the-paradox questions, remember that both of the

seemingly contradictory pieces of the paradox are true, so you’re looking for some new piece of information that allows them to peacefully co-exist.

• When the discrepancy revolves around two groups or things (which is usually the case), quickly eliminate any choice that offers information on only one of them, like (E) here. A true resolution to such a discrepancy must be based on a fact that in some way relates to both groups. When attempting to resolve a discrepancy, be wary of choices that further confound the odd result or finding found in the stimulus. (B), (E) The statements in the stimulus don’t say anything about nonmathematicians, so these two choices are outside the scope. (C) and (D) both discuss “individuals” and not specifically “mathematicians.” While it may be true that the term “individuals” includes mathematicians, it also includes everyone else, and that’s too general for this argument. The beauty of formal arguments is that they usually operate within strictly defined

parameters. Therefore, when a choice offers a term that isn’t perfectly within this boundary, such as “non-mathematicians” or “individual,” we can be reasonably sure that that choice is beyond the scope. What’s the author saying? Some people get their moral standards from governmental codes of law. These people cannot imagine that something that is legal could be immoral. In other words, for these people, if something is legal, then it must be moral. This is one of those formal arguments in casual clothing, and if you remember your if-then statements, this should be no sweat. If not, go back and learn them! So we need to find a statement that is logically inconsistent with the stimulus statement — something that, if people held both views at the same time, would give them an inconsistent outlook. If something is legal, then it is moral, they say. What’s the contrapositive of this statement? If something is not moral, then it is not legal. For someone to hold logically consistent views, they must believe the contrapositive of their beliefs as well, right? Well, choice (A) is inconsistent with this belief, and therefore correct, because it implies that it’s not necessarily true that if an act is immoral, it is illegal, since law doesn’t cover all immoral circumstances.

In resolve-the-paradox questions, remember that both of the seemingly contradictory pieces of the paradox are true, so you’re looking for some new piece of information that allows them to peacefully co-exist. Here the givens are that between 1969 and 1986, stratospheric ozone, which absorbs a lot of ultraviolet, decreased. We’d expect a corresponding increase in ultraviolet, but instead we get a decrease. Why? Remember that you’re not trying to explain away the decreases; they’re a given. What you’re looking for is some new piece of information that explains why the cause — decreased ozone — didn’t have its predicted effect — increased ultraviolet. Could something else have absorbed the UV? That’s what correct choice (D) says. Flaw in reasoning type

1. confusing correlation with causation 2. confusion between ‘followed by’ and caused

‘y came after x, so x caused y’ 3. Similar in 1 way does not mean similar in another way 4. You have to find flaw in the conclusion reached by the author based on the

information given, not based on the information lacking. Flaw in argument cannot be a flaw in the information not provided

5. Alternative possibility not considered by author when the question tells you there is a problem with the argumentation. In such cases, always keep an eye out for alternative possibilities/explanations that the author ignores. When an author unfairly assumes that no such alternative exists, then the omission of this alternative possibility is usually the source of the logical flaw.

6. when x is compared with something y and it is a misleading ad, then the answer choice must have some info on that thing being compared with y

7. local (local weather) vs global (global warming/universal) 8. misleading ads try to form a cause a effect relation – between their product and its effect

(say people bought it most because it was the best) – without stating other possibilities (because it was cheaper that is why it is most selling)

9. no control group – The fact that no control group was used in the study to see if any other factors might be contributing to the behavioral change is a flaw in the study and in its interpretation by the author.

10. one cannot generalize for a group on the basis of only 1 element of the group showing a certain caracteristic

if x (haleys comet) belongs to a group (comet). If you found out something about x(the reflective property of haleys comet is 60 times lesser than previously thought) then it does not mean that finding is true for the entire group (i.e. you cannot say that the reflective property of all comets is lesser than we originally thought)

could = possible

Some passages include “filler” material that has no real bearing on the author’s main argument. If you follow Kaplan’s advice on locating and focusing on the conclusion and supporting evidence, you’ll be less likely to be distracted by extraneous information 17. (D) As wordy as the stimulus is, it lends itself readily to an algebraic treatment, revealing a blatant example of the “fallacy of affirming the consequent”: Whenever A (lawsuit is lost), then B (stocks fall). Since B (stocks fell), therefore A (lawsuit was lost). In (D), “winning the scholarship” is A and “getting $10 grand” is B. It is always improper to reverse the terms of an if/then statement, but since this is parallel reasoning and the stimulus does so, the correct answer must follow suit. Q17 (B) draws a conclusion of greater intensity: “Since a price cut on the part of large airlines

hurts small ones, a huge price cut must hurt small airlines hugely.” No such intensification is present in the stimulus: The “significant” fall in stock value is present in both evidence and conclusion. Q20 The main conclusion—once again signaled by the Keyword “Therefore” in the last sentence—is simply that the cold mixture is “obviously” not effective because many people with colds don’t use it. You probably saw through this simplistic reasoning and realized that there could be many valid reasons that would explain why many cold sufferers don’t use the mixture, even if it is effective. We’ll see these scenarios in the wrong choices below. The one choice here that the argument does not rely on is (C). The author concludes that the mixture is not effective, while (C) has it magically preventing further colds.

1. The confusion of correlation and causation is an astonishingly frequent correct answer for logical flaw questions — keep an eye out for it. Correlation: Short children can’t reach high shelves easily and short children are likely to become short adults — and implying a causation: that the inability to reach high shelves causes the children to grow up short.

2. An author can’t say that X causes Y based on

evidence that Y came after X. Such an argument assumes that no other factor is responsible for Y. Learn to recognize the kind of “ y came after x, therefore x caused y” style of reasoning demonstrated in this argument. Similar in 1 way does not mean similar in another way . The ad implies that brains and muscles must be similar in one respect (they will both benefit from exercise) because they are similar in another (they are both physical organs). You have to find flaw in the conclusion reached by the author based on the information given, not based on the information lacking. Flaw in argument cannot be a flaw in the information not provided Evidence of a“proportionate reduction” (A), the exact number of problem children (C), and evidence regarding children unaffected by additives (D) are all irrelevant to the argument at hand. It is true that the author doesn’t supply these pieces of evidence, but don’t let that fool you: they are beyond the scope of her specific argument, so she doesn’t have to address them.

The fact that no control group was used in the study to see if any other factors might be contributing to the behavioral change is a flaw in the study and in its interpretation by the author. when the question tells you there is a problem with the argumentation. In such cases, always keep an eye out for alternative possibilities/explanations that the author ignores. When an author unfairly assumes that no such alternative exists, then the omission of this alternative possibility is usually the source of the logical flaw. 4. when x is compared with something y and it is a misleading ad, then the answer choice must have some info on that thing being compared with y Always focus on the scope of the argument presented. Here, the argument is not simply that the soup is nutritious, but rather that it’s nutritious for a specific reason—more vitamin C than apricots and carrots. If the ad is misleading, there must be some breakdown between this evidence and the claim, which means that the right answer will almost surely contain info about apricots and carrots. This alone narrows the choices down to (A) and (E). 8. (E) local (local weather) vs global (global warming/universal) Talk about a scope shift! George supports a conclusion about global warming with evidence from his town. Now, in an age of narcissism, many of us do believe that we’re the center of the universe, but logically this notion doesn’t hold up. George says that global warming is occurring because his town has recently exhibited an unusual warming trend, but we know that that could be a coincidence. What we really need to know in evaluating George’s argument is whether the trends cited in his town are truly global trends—is the rest of the world getting warmer too? If so, his conclusion may hold up. If not, we have no reason to believe that George’s experience is an indicator of a global trend. Regardless of the question asked, the important thing is to recognize large disparities between the scope of the evidence (here, local weather) and the scope of the conclusion (global warming).

(A) posits an unsupported connection between consistency and flavor. No such connection is stated or implied in the passage. Deviations in storage temperature affect ice cream’s consistency, and stabilizers affect its flavor, but (A) mistakenly has deviations in consistency affecting flavor. A common wrong answer type in Inference questions is the unwarranted comparison or connection, illustrated nicely in choice (A) here. It appears often when the stimulus contains two or more groups or elements, such as this argument’s “consistency” and “flavor.” If there’s no stated or implied connection between the

two, cross off any choices that attempt to assert that there is. shoppers never said why they preferred Northwoods, and they certainly never mentioned how it tasted. So the ad is misleading because, as (D) has it, they could have preferred the syrup for some reason unrelated to taste, say because it was cheaper. Remember, answer choices that question arguers’ motives are usually wrong.

9 ‘are happy’ vs ‘report/claim that they are happy’ As you practice, take note of the precise way in which the LSAT uses language. For example, if a survey shows that 25 percent of the people in a group “are happy,” then we must take this evidence to mean that they actually are happy. But if 25 percent “report that they are happy,” we cannot assume their actual happiness. On faulty logic questions, if you have difficulty in seeing how an answer choice applies to the argument , it probably doesn’t describe the argument’s flaw. In Logical flaw questions in general, if you find yourself having to go out of your way to justify an answer choice, then that choice is probably wrong. Many of the wrong answer choices in formal logic questions will make the mistake of reversing the legitimate inference. “Every socialist is against totalitarianism” doesn’t mean “everyone against totalitarianism is a socialist.” Learn to expect such traps when you scan the choices. • Don’t get bogged down in the wordiness of questions like this. Just as in Question 6 in this section, another formal logic setup, you can replace phrases with letters, yielding a simpler translation: Every W (early-twentieth-century socialist political philosopher) and every X (early-twentieth-century communist political philosopher) was influenced by Y (Rosa Luxemburg). No one influenced by Y advocated Z. The logical conclusion is: Therefore, no W or X advocated Z. (Again, “X” is left out of the right answer, but that’s O.K.) using technology to make safer products isn’t the same thing as making technologically more advanced products.

Parallel reasoning 1. Eliminate answer choices that don’t have a conclusion similar in

structure to the conclusion given 2. Symbolize with x,y and z

For parallel reasoning, an effective technique involves looking at the conclusion, then looking for a parallel among the answer choices. Eg: conclusion: x cannot be like others

In above conclusion we have 2 groups – x and others. Any answer choice not having 2 groups is wrong. So start parallel reasoning by looking at conclusion of choices Symbolize with x,y and z One shortcut is to compare conclusions, and knock off the choices that deviate from the conclusion of the original. Here, we can eliminate two of the choices without even reading much of them: these choices can be axed by noticing how the words “increased more” in (C), and “included in an anthology of the best” in (E) don’t match the notion of something being “the best or most.” Knocking out two or more choices quickly makes a question like this do-able in the usual minute and a quarter average allotted for each LR question.

Since the stimulus is made up of short formal logic statements, we can symbolize

the logic algebraically to help us in our work. If X (you climb mountains) then not Y (reach old age). Z (you will be bored) unless X (you climb mountains). Therefore, if Y (you reach old age), then Z (you will be bored). Our answer must then be of the form: “If X, then not Y. Z unless X. Therefore, if Y, then Z.” Let’s check each one: (A) and (B) both begin with “if not X, then not Y,” which doesn’t match the original. Furthermore, (A) concludes with a mandate (“you must try to swim”) which is off base as well. (C) If X (work for your candidate), then not Y (improve your guitar playing). Z (neglect your civil duty) unless X (work for your candidate). So far, so good. Therefore, if Y (improve your guitar playing) then Z (neglect your civil duty). A perfect match. (D), like (A) and (B), begins with “if not X, then not Y,” so we can cross it off quickly. (E) starts out okay with “if X then not Y,” and then follows with Z unless X. So far, so good. But the last statement, “if Y, then not Z” isn’t parallel, so (E) is out. • In Parallel Reasoning, when the argument is formal enough to symbolize, do so. If not, characterize the argument and look to compare the original’s conclusion to the ones in the choices.

23. (D) A scan of the conclusions of the stimulus and answer choices suggests that only (A) or (D) need be considered: The stimulus conclusion is essentially saying that “some condition is not present,” which leaves (A) and (D) in contention; but (B) interjects an if-term (“If he is practicing as a psychiatrist”) that’s not found in the stimulus; (C) qualifies its conclusion with “probably”; and (E)’s conclusion is that some condition is the case—not parallel. (D) turns out to be correct because it, like the stimulus, commits the same error: the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Because Sabina possesses neither of two symptoms of tooth decay and gum disease, says the stimulus, she must not have either ailment—ignoring the possibility that those ailments may come with other symptoms that Sabina may have. The same structure is present, even more clearly, in (D): Because Yolanda is interested in neither of two branches of science that are associated with a medical career, she shouldn’t study medicine—ignoring the possibility that one’s interest in other fields might make it wise for one to go into medicine. (A)’s only real “flaw” is that the first sentence doesn’t exactly provide the evidence needed to make the argument work. If we were told that people who drink a lot of coffee do get the jitters (as opposed to “are said to have” the jitters), then the argument would be logically valid: In that case, coffee-addicted med students should indeed not go into either specialty, because neither specialty can be handled when one has the jitters. So (A) isn’t 100% sound as written, but unlike the original stimulus and (D), in no sense does it commit the “fallacy of denying the antecedent.” (B) Besides its extraneous if-clause, (B) errs by dropping a key term (medical degree) from its conclusion, something the stimulus doesn’t do. (C) Besides its extraneous “probably,” (C) also drops a key term (suffering from an allergy). (E) Besides its positive conclusion, (E) errs in its scope shift (‘specialized training” vs. “accurate diagnosis”) not present in the stimulus. • Don’t be afraid to toss out a choice whose conclusion explicitly deviates from the conclusion in the stimulus.

Numbers n percentages 1. Whenever stimuli throw around percent increases or decreases, beware: Percent increases and decreases are not the same as changes in the actual numbers or amount 2. are happy vs report/claim that they are happy As you practice, take note of the precise way in which the LSAT uses language. For example, if a survey shows that 25 percent of the people in a group “are happy,” then we must take this evidence to mean that they actually are happy. But if 25 percent “report that they are happy,” we cannot assume their actual happiness. waste management companies are reporting that an “ever-increasing” percentage of the waste they handle is plastic. But percentages are deceiving; there may, for example, be a higher percentage of plastic in the waste, but if the total amount of waste is decreasing,

then the actual amount of plastic waste may have remained stable or even decreased. Choice (D) gets at this: Waste handlers are receiving less of other types of waste; thus there is less overall waste; thus the increase in percent of plastic waste does not necessarily mean that people are throwing out as much as or more plastic waste. .If you understand how percentages differ from raw numbers, you won’t mistake one for the other. A large percentage of something is often, in actual terms, little. Here, the 44 percent figure is meant to sound impressive, but in actual terms it may amount to very little fiber

18. (A) The Great Banks cod estimate is arrived at by averaging two other estimates: a samplingbased estimate and a commercial estimate. During the last decade, the commercial estimate increased by about the same amount that the sampling based estimate decreased. Based on that, it’s pretty safe to infer that the average of those two numbers—that is, the official estimate—has stayed about the same for the past ten years. Here’s an example of

how the LSAT can test some rudimentary arithmetic logic on your part. Don’t get caught up in details before you get a handle on the overall situation. Here, it was imperative that you first understood that there was one estimate, arrived at by averaging two other estimates. Then, when you find out that one of the base estimates increased as much as the other decreased, the correct inference should suggest itself. EXCEPT question type ..each of the statements could be true, except? => Which statement cannot be true? Answer: the statement that explicitly contradicts the information given in the stimulus. On the other hand, if it is not explicitly contradicted in the passage, it can be true.

“point at issue” question The correct answer to a “point at issue” question must satisfy two criteria: 1) it must be a point that both characters address in their arguments; and 2) it must be a point about which the two characters disagree. Any choice that fails to meet either one of these criteria should be crossed off immediately. • In essence, “point at issue” questions are testing little more than whether you’ve identified the topic and scope that two speakers have in common.

Principle question The question basically means “what would X agree with” ”what principle is consistent with what X is saying”

‘Causation does not equal Necessary’ logical error If x occurs, then y will also occur Does not imply that y cannot happen without x

X maybe one of the things that may cause Y to occur but it does not mean it is the ONLY thing that can cause Y to occur. It could also be that if Z occurs then also Y will occur. ‘X may cause Y’ is not equal to ‘X is necessary to cause Y’, It is possible that ‘Z also may cause Y’ The mistake made here is one of the most common in LSAT Logical Reasoning. There are many ways to describe it—it’s basically a matter of taking “if A occurs then B will also occur” to mean “B can never occur unless A does too” (or vice-versa). Keep your eye open for this flaw as you do Logical Reasoning; become an expert in spotting it. It occurs in many guises and it’s always wrong. 26. (B) The evidence says that if Blankenship Enterprises switches suppliers, then it will not show a profit. The conclusion reverses this, and says that if Blankenship Enterprises failed to show a profit, then it must have switched suppliers. You’ve come to know this as “the fallacy of affirming the consequent”: We’re not allowed to simply flip the “if” and “then” terms of a conditional statement. Although we know that switching suppliers would account for a failure to make a profit, it’s not necessarily the only possible cause of such a failure. And that’s all that (B) is saying, in so many words. (A) is far from the truth: The conclusion doesn’t even follow from the evidence, so it can hardly be a restatement of same (which is what “circular” means). (C) There’s no change in the meaning of the word profit—it’s a constant throughout the argument. (D) There’s no universal conclusion; the author never looks beyond Blankenship Enterprises. (E) misses the point. The issue isn’t whether one event causes the other, but whether the occurrence of one event is absolutely necessary for the occurrence of a second event. Whether or not there’s some basic underlying cause for the occurrence of both events is irrelevant.

Resolve paradox if you take note of the differences in the elements of the discrepancy, you should know what to expect when you hit the answer choices. Here, the discrepancy revolves around the difference between the total number of books sold and the average time spent reading by literate people. Weaken/strengthen Questions which say “if true” ----- mostly provide some new information not given before When you’re asked for the criticism made by the author of a passage, concentrate on the author’s conclusion. The author above concludes: ‘If there’s a difference in the principles involved, the editorial should have explained it.’ That’s the criticism right there, and it plainly has nothing to do with “factual claims” (A), “finding an exception” (C), “refuting an assumption” (D), or “drawing a different conclusion” (E). You should go on the alert every time a stimulus uses words like “overall” or “total” or “cumulative.” Watch out for arguments that use evidence that only compares the parts of some thing, and then draws a conclusion about the whole of that thing. “impossible.” To increase Not equal to “placing limits” on rent increases, If there are 2 elements in a conclusion, then the correct answer must contain both of them The conclusion, signaled by the keyword “therefore,” contains two elements: vocabulary and perception. Notice that only the correct answer contains both these two key elements; the others only discuss one of them - vocabulary. Important – when you are stuck between 2 answer choices, one of which you understand and the other one you don’t understand, ----- then choose the answer choice you understand. Generally answer choices which are too complex to understand are not the correct answer choice. For MUST be true/false – the correct answer cannot provide new information (unlike strengthen/weaken questions which can provide new info). it can deal only with information given in the passage. On a short, clear stimulus like this, picking the correct choice often turns out to be a simple case of sticking within the limits, or scope, of the passage. Don’t read anything into the stimulus. You only know “the airport failed to meet operating expenses”; nothing about what will happen (E), why it happened (A) and (B), or how other expenses were paid (C).

the most common errors are scope shift errors – i.e. one party is talking abt one thing and the other party is talking abt another thing. Counter-argument type question when dealing with counter-argument type question, the error mostly lies in a scope shift so the correct answer is one that somehow connects the 2 scope shift terms. When dealing with an argument/counter-argument, keep an eye on the terms used in the two arguments. If the counter-argument uses new terms (which usually indicates a scope shift), it must connect its terms to those of the argument. If it doesn’t, chances are the counter-argument is making some hidden assumptions concerning the connections between the terms. 17. (C) The consumer activist complains that deregulating major airlines has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who doesn’t have easy access to a major airport. The industry representative counters that, on the contrary, thanks to regional airlines, there are now more regular flights out of most small airports than there used to be. Do you see the problem, in the form of the scope shift? The activist is talking about “disadvantage” and the representative is talking about “number of flights.” We need something to connect those ideas, and we find it in (C). sometimes what you may think is an inference of the passage can be an assumption of the passage. Be very careful about broadening the scope, be also very careful that if the author does not say what SHOULD be done then discard choices which are giving suggestions of what should be done. Scope is an important consideration in assumption questions. When the subject of an argument is quite specific (about airlines), beware of choices that claim the author must be making assumptions beyond that subject (about consumers in general), as do (B) and (C) above. Also beware of choices that introduce terms and ideas the argument never uses, as does (E) above. 18. (D) The consumer activist claims that deregulation worked to the disadvantage of everyone without access to a major airport. Why? Because the removal of government regulations allowed major airlines to abandon unprofitable routes “as they promptly did.” That means, as (D) points out, that the regulations had been to some degree responsible for the fact that the airlines were maintaining their less profitable routes. Use the denial test; if the regulations weren’t partly responsible, then their removal wouldn’t have caused a wholesale abandonment of the unprofitable routes. LSAT PREP ______________________________________________________________ LSAT Test XIV Explained: Section II

© K A P L A N 33 (A) The activist claims that deregulation created new disadvantages for those without access to major airports, but needn’t assume that before deregulation there were no disadvantages for those without such access. (B) The activist needn’t assume anything about what should be done, since he never addresses that concern in his argument; moreover (B)’s claim about “any sizable group of consumers” is clearly too general in scope. (C) is also too general; the activist says that in this case deregulation created disadvantages, but needn’t assume that regulation “almost always” is advantageous. (E) The activist’s argument never mentioned “regional airlines” so you can be pretty sure he’s not assuming anything about them. Moreover, the argument doesn’t discuss “quality of service” but concentrates on access to service. Always be on the lookout for obvious differences between the terms of the evidence and those of the conclusion. Noticing these “scope shifts” will help you answer many kinds of Logical Reasoning questions, including assumption questions 20. (B) The spokesperson concludes that, despite the reduction in subsidy, the railroad’s service has remained satisfactory. What’s the evidence? The number of passengers has increased. The conclusion and the evidence use different terms: “service” and “number of passengers.” The assumption must connect those terms; it must show that the number of passengers reflects the quality of service. (B) does the job: the spokesperson is assuming that unsatisfactory service would cause some people to refuse to travel by train. Otherwise, no matter how bad the service was, the number of passengers would be unaffected. “weaken EXCEPT” question, don’t expect the answer choice to necessarily be a strengthener, although it could be—chances are it will be a statement that simply has no effect on the argument.