Universal Quantifiers

Indicators — these words Rule Example Special Considerations Universal quantifiers are words that indicate absolute
introduce the condition (“all”, 100% and “none”, 0%) relationships.

Group 1 If
Introduces the If Andy leaves the In other words, one group is completely subsumed by
All
sufficient condition apartment, Phelan will kill another group.

Any
him.

Anyone
Examples:

Every
A→P - All humans are mammals.

When
- If you are a human, you must be a mammal.

Whenever
- If you are not a mammal, you cannot be a human.

Where
- None of the creatures who are not mammals are
The only humans.

Group 2 Always
Introduces the Andy leaving the These follow the necessary
Must
necessary condition apartment requires condition:
They can be contraposed (flip + negate), which
Requires
Phelan to kill him.
- “…is required”
produces the logically equivalent relationship of the
Only
- “…is necessary”
original statement.
Only ___
A→P - “…is essential”

Is
- “…is caused by”

Presuppose

Causes

Group 3 Without
Negate one, make Andy does not leave the “Except” is an biconditional
Or
it the sufficient apartment without logical indicator

Until
condition Phelan knowing.

Unless
*See the Advanced Logical
Except AL → PK Indicators section

Group 4 No
Negate one, make No person has ever
Never
it the necessary escaped Phelan’s wrath.

Not both
condition
None
P → /EPW

Cannot (Translates to: “If you are

a person, you will not
ever escape Phelan’s
wrath.”)

Existential Quantifiers

Indicator Synonyms Meaning Example Logical Translation Existential quantifiers are words that indicate relative
(“some” and “most”) relationships.

Some Many
Range of at least 1% to 100%.
Some butterflies are pretty B ←s→ P


Several
(i.e. 1%-100% of butterflies In other words, these statements convey the size of the
A number of… - Implies few, most, all are pretty). The ‘←s→’ works as a biconditional, so intersection between two groups.

- Does not imply none the two variables can be flipped around.

Example: We have two groups. Group 1 is dogs. Group 2 is

I.e. P ←s→ B
things that are cute. Not all dogs are cute. Not all cute
This reads as “some butterflies are pretty”
and “some pretty things are butterflies”.
things are dogs. But some dogs are cute, and some cute
things are dogs. To show this overlap/relationship, we use
existential quantifiers. 

Most Majority
Range of 51% to 100%.
Most butterflies are pretty B ‑m→ P

Usually
(i.e. 51%-100% of butterflies Unlike universal quantifiers, they cannot be contraposed.

Typically
- Implies all are pretty). The ‘‑m→’ shows the relationship going
Often
- Does not imply some or none only in one direction, so the variables For existential quantifiers, the only way to get a logical
Frequently cannot be flipped around. equivalent is to use other quantifiers that imply the same
relationship (i.e. some = most; most = majority, few = some
Few Minority
Range of at least 1% to 50%.
Few butterflies are pretty This statement means two things:
are but most are not…, etc.)
(I.e. 1%-50% of butterflies 1) Some butterflies are pretty.

- Implies some to an extent.

are pretty). 2) Most butterflies are not pretty.
NOTE: If "All" true → "Most", "Some", and "Many" are true
- Does not imply most, all, or
none So, we have to translate ‘few' statements
in two parts:

1) B ←s→ P

2) B ‑m→ /P

NOTE: In using “few”, you must remember

two things:

- “few are not” = “most are”

- “few are” = “most are not”

Negating Logical Indicators

Indicators Logical Opposite How to Negate? Example Meaning of Negation Negation: denying/destroying the
relationship; logical opposite.

Universal Quantifiers All “Some…not” (1-99%)

Either you:
Small animals can move more rapidly Negating all statements implies “not all”.

“Not all” (0%)

1) Add “It is not the case that…” than large animals can.

Contrapositive: flipping and

before the statement.
SA → MRLA
This translates to either:

negating; this is done to find the

(Total range of 0-99%) 2) Add “not” before the statement. - Some…not (which = ‘most not’)
logical equivalent of a given
Logical opposite:
- One and not the other
universal conditional relationship.
1) It is not the case that SA → MRLA
- None (implied by ‘some not’ = ‘not all’)

2) Not (SA → MRLA)

So, the negation of SA → MRLA implies:

- “Some small animals cannot move more rapidly

than large animals” (SA ←s→ /MRLA)

- “You can be a small animal and not move more

rapidly than a large animal” (SA and /MRLA)

- “No small animals can move more rapidly than

large animals (SA→ /MRLA)

None “Some” (Range of 1-100%) Change the “none” to “some” “No dogs go to heaven.”
Negating “none” statements implies “not none”.

D → /H

This translates to either:

Logical opposite:
- Some (which = most, all)

1) It is not the case that D → /H

- One and not the other

2) Not (D → /H)
So, the negation of D → /H implies:

- Some dogs go to heaven (D ←s→ H) [also

implies D → H because some = all]

- You can be a dog and go to heaven (D and H)

Existential Quantifiers Some “None” (0%) Change the “some” to “none”. Some dogs are brave.
Some = most, all

D ←s→ B
Some ≠ none

Logical opposite:
The only thing that ‘some’ does not encompass is
“No dogs are brave.”
‘none’. This means that ‘none’ is the logical
D → /B, B → /D
opposite of any ‘some’ statement.

Most The range of 1-50%

To make the logical opposite, you “Chess is the most appropriate analogy By negating “most” statements, it is implied that
“None” (0%)
have to account for zero to 50 since to reporting on political campaigns.”
between 0-50% is the case as opposed to
"most" excludes 0-50%.
C ‑m→ AA
51-100%, which is what the original statement is
(Total range of 0-50%) advocating for.
So, this is a three step process:
Logical opposite:

1) Slap “it is not the case that…” 1) It is not the case that C ‑m→ AA.

before the statement.

2) Not (C ‑m→ AA)

2) Place “not” before the logical 3) Chess is an appropriate analogy to

translation of the statement (i.e. use between 1-50% of the time or
Not [X ‑m→ Y])
not at all (0%).
3) Express the negation in English
by conveying the precise range
of 0-50%.

1
 Valid Argument Forms — Logical Reasoning

Lawgical Form Example Visual Notes

Form 1: A → B
All Jedi use the force.
J J J
When your second premise
Sufficient/ X is A
Luke is a Jedi.
F F F F F
affirms the sufficient
Necessary Therefore, X is B Therefore, Luke uses the force. L condition, then you can draw
the necessary condition as a
valid conclusion.

Form 2: A → B
All Jedi use the force.
J J J
When the necessary
Denying the X is /B
Gary does not use the force.
F F F F F
condition is not met, the only
Necessary Therefore, X is /A Therefore, Gary is not a Jedi. G valid conclusion is that the
sufficient condition is not
Universal
met

Causation
This form is practically the
contrapositive of the original
conditional statement.

Form 3: A → B → C
Everyone has the capacity to E E E The necessary condition (B)
Sufficient/ Therefore, A → C love.
L L L L L
to the first sufficient
Necessary Chain Having the capacity to love CCC CC condition (A), together, are
Inference require compassion.
sufficient to bring about a
Therefore, everyone has second necessary condition
compassion. (C).

Form 4: A ←some→ B → C
Some dogs are cute.
DDDDD
Try visualizing the statements
Some/All/Some Therefore, A ←some→ C All cute things are lovable.
CC to get a good grasp on them.
Therefore, some dogs are L L
lovable.
Chain Inferences
Form 5: A ‑most→ B → C
Most cats are aloof.
C C C C C C

Most/All/Most Therefore, A ‑most→ C All aloof things are arrogant.

AAAA
Therefore, most cats are GGGG
arrogant.

Form 6: A → B
All dogs are fluffy.
D D D D
Both statements have to
All/All/Some A → C
All dogs are cute.
F F F F F F F F…
share the same sufficient
Therefore, B ←some→ C Therefore, some fluffy things are C C C C C C C…
variable.

also cute.
(We don’t know Ex. All apples are fruits. (B →
how many fluffy or A) All pears are fruits. (C →
cute things there A)

are, so “some” is
most appropriate) It’s impossible to make an
inference that some apples
are pears. So, when in
doubt, take the
contrapositive.

Form 7: A→B
Every child is a loudmouth.
C C C C
Form 4 and 7 are the same!
Same Sufficient All/Some/Some A ←some→ C
Some children have red hair.
L L L L L L L
(Just ordered differently)
Variable Therefore, B ←some→ C Therefore, some loudmouths RR
have red hair.

Form 8: A → B
All lions like to nap.
L L L L L

All/Most/Some A -most→ C
Most lions like to eat meat.
N N N N N N N…

Therefore, B ←some→ C Therefore, some things that like M M M…

to nap also like to eat meat.

Form 9: A -most→ B
Most turtles are small.
T T T T T T
(B -most→ C) would be
Most/Most/Some A -most→ C
Most turtles are named after S S S S S S…
incorrect. We don't know
Therefore, B ←some→ C Italian painters.
P P P P…
how many Bs relative to Cs
Therefore, some things that are there are. So, the only valid
green are named after Italian inference we can make is (B
painters. ←some→ C) to account for
the unknown # of either
variable.

2
 Invalid Argument Forms — Logical Reasoning

Lawgical Form Example Visual Notes Invalid forms doesn’t necessarily indicate a
completely wrong answer. Rather, ‘invalid’ means
Form 1: A → B
All dogs are fluffy.
D D D
This argument form is reversing the ‘not 100%”. ’Validity’ means “100% certainty. So,
Triggering X is B
Fred the cat is FFFFF conditional relationship.
anything that’s 99% or ‘could be true’ is invalid.
Necessary Therefore, X is A fluffy.
C A → B ≠ B → A

Condition Therefore, Fred is a Reversing a relationship makes it

dog. invalid, just like negating a
Universal relationship.
Causation
Form 2: A → B
All women are W W W
This argument form is negating the
Negating the X is /A
intelligent. Frank is I I I I I…
conditional relationship.

Sufficient Therefore, X is /B not a woman. F A → B ≠ → /A → /B

Condition Therefore, Frank is Negating a relationship makes it

not intelligent. invalid.

Form 3: A → B ←some→ C
All dogs are cute. DDD
When it comes to chain inferences,
Uni-First Chain Therefore,
Some cute things C C C C C C…
the existential quantifiers need to
Inference A ←some→ C are lovable. L L…
precede the universal one in order to
(All, Some) Therefore, some deduce a valid inference.
dogs are lovable.

Form 4: A → B -most→ C
All taxi drivers are T T T
Same rule as above.

Uni-First Chain Therefore,

men. Most men M M M M M M…

Inference A -most→ C
hate driving. H? H H H H This argument could be true, but
(All, Most) Therefore, most taxi when it comes to validity, anything
drivers hate driving. that is not 100% certain is invalid.

Invalid Form 5: A ←s→ B ←s→ C

Some of these P P P P
By using the bucket method as well,
Inference No-Uni Chain Therefore, A ←s→ C pencils are Yellow. Y? Y Y Y Y
we don’t know if some of variable A
Chains Inference Some yellow things $? $ $ $ $ apply to some of variable B, etc.

(Some3) are $$$. Therefore,

some of these This argument could be true, which
pencils are $$$. means that it’s invalid.

Form 6: A -m→ B -m→ C

Most police buy P P P P P
There could be some, most, or no
No-Uni Chain Therefore, A -m→ C
donuts. Most D D D D D D D
intersection.This argument could be
Inference people who buy T T? T T T T
true, which means it’s invalid.

(Most2 + Most3) A -m→ B -m→ C

donuts don’t like
Therefore, A ←s→ C
tea. Therefore, When it comes to inference chains,
most/some police there has to be a universal quantizer
don’t like tea. and it has to come after the
existential one.

Form 7: A ←some→ B
Some horses HHHHH
There could be an intersection, but
Some3 A ←some→ C
whistle. Some W W W W
there is a greater likelihood that there
Same
Therefore, B ←s→ C horses prance. …P P P?
isn’t not one. Here, we can’t infer
Sufficient
Therefore, some anything for certain = it could be true
Variable
horses whistle and = invalid.
prance.

1
 Advanced Logical Indicators: AND + OR

Indicator Word Placement Indicator Example Rule Rule Example Implication

Or Sufficient Condition If Ben or Jerry go to Split the sufficient B → A

A and /B; or
Always think of “or” as inclusive (that
the mall, Ann will J→A B and /A; or
both can occur) unless told otherwise
stay home. Both variables are are Both A and B (i.e. through a biconditional indicator
independently sufficient to like “either/or, but not both”
guaranteeing the necessary
condition

Necessary If Ben eats sushi, Don’t split the necessary B → J or A

Condition Jerry or Ann will
come with him. If you split it, the sufficient
condition will guarantee both,
which is counterintuitive.

Contrapositive
If Ben or Jerry likes 1) Reverse
B → A
Not A and not B
(De Morgan’s Law) blue, then Ann likes 2) Negate
J → A

red. 3) Change or to and. ———

/A → /B

/A → /J

And Sufficient Condition If Ben and Jerry go Don’t split the sufficient B+J→A Both A and B And and But mean the same thing.
to the mall, Ann will
stay home. They are jointly sufficient to
guaranteeing the necessary
condition

Necessary If Ben eats sushi, Split the necessary B → J

Condition Jerry and Ann will B→A

come with him. The sufficient condition
guarantees both as they are
jointly necessary.

Contrapositive
If Ben and Jenny like 1) Reverse
B + J → A
A and /B

(De Morgan’s Law) blue, Ann likes red. 2) Negate

———
B and /A

3) Change and to or /A → /B or /J Not A and not B

Advanced Logical Indicators: BICONDITIONALS

Indicator Phrase Type Example Meaning Logical Translation Implication

If and only if Together, never apart

Alan attends the 1) Alan attends the meeting 1) Group 1: B → A
A B

- Both conditions are meeting if and only if Ben does.

2) Group 2: A → B
/A /B
sufficient and if Ben does. 2) Alan attends the meeting
necessary for one only if Ben does. (Group
another
2: necessary)
- Both conditions are
But not otherwise either “in” or “out” Ben goes to the 1) If Alan goes to the park, 1) Group 1: A → B, /B → /A
A B

together park if Alan goes to then Ben goes to the 2) Group 1: /A → /B, B → A /A /B

the park, but not park.

otherwise. 2) If Alan does not go to

the park, then Ben does * logical equivalent of “If
not go. and only if”

Except Always apart, never Alan goes to the Alan goes to the park unless /A → B
Treat “except” as
together
park except when Ben goes to the park. /B → A “unless”, which belongs
- One condition is Ben goes to the got Group 3 (negate,
“out” while the other park. sufficient)
is “in” and vic versa
Either/or…, but Either Alan or Ben 1) Alan or Ben goes to the 1) Group 3: /A → B, /B → A
/A B

not both goes to the park park.

2) Group 4: A → /B, B → /A /B A
but not both. 2) Alan and Ben cannot
both go to the park.

Logic Games: “Or” and “Not Both”

Indicator Word Notes Truth Table

Or Unless told otherwise, always assume “or” is inclusive — that “Or” covers three of four possibilities:

both variables can occur together, or else it’s one or the

other.
/A → B

An “or” relationship is indicated by the negated sufficient and 1. A is out (/A → B)

the unnegated necessary (i.e. /A → B). 2. B is out (/B → A)

3. A and B are in (A + B)

Under no circumstance can either variable in an “or”

statement be “out”. This is because the presence of the
necessary condition on its own conjures the possibility of
either A being in or out. Therefore, in no case can both A and
B be out.

1
Indicator Word Notes Truth Table

Not Both A “not both” statement is indicated by the negated necessary “Not both” covers three of four possibilities:

(i.e. A → /B).

A → /B

1. B is out (A → /B)

2. A is out (B → /A)

3. A and B are both out (/A + /B)

Under no circumstance can either variable in a “not both”

statement be “in”. This is because the presence of the
negated necessary condition prompts the possibility of either
A being in or out. Therefore, in no case can both A and B be
in.

2
 23 Common Argument Flaws — Logical Reasoning

Argument Flaw Meaning Examples

Ad Hominem Attacking the author, their actions, “The Congressman voted to change the law because he had significant investments To attack an argument, you either to
credentials, or motivations, in the industry, so the bill should not be passed.”
attack:

(1) the premises (which rarely happen on

This argument attacks the person making the argument but says nothing about the LSAT)

whether there are justifiable reasons the bill should/shouldn’t be passed. (2) the support that the premises give
the conclusion

Equivocation Shift in meaning; the author uses a term “Public interest” is used in an argument to describe, at one point, what is in the best
with more than one meaning interest of the public (i.e. schools, economy, roads, etc.) vs. when it is used to Just because you attack the premise and
inconsistently. describe what the public is interested in (new sports venues, political scandal, etc.) the support, does not mean that the
Weak Analogy The two things being analogized are “Attacking LSAT questions is like attacking enemy starships.” conclusion does not follow.

neither relevant nor similar, so the analogy 

cannot continue. I.e. We should bomb Iraq because they
have WMDs. 

Irrelevant Appeal to Appealing to authority where the subject Appealing to a dentist’s opinions on an automotive maintenance is not authoritative.


Authority matter is outside the expertise of the Wrecking the support: Iraq is not the only
authority. *For example, see LSAT 20-S4-Q20 country that has WMDs. Our allies have
WMDs.

Causation vs. Concluding that because A is correlated Accident rate and sign-speed questions:


Correlation with B, A caused B. But this is often not Wrecking the premise: Iraq does not have
the case on the LSAT.
“A new speed limit sign was put up and accident rates dropped dramatically WMDs.

afterwards. The only plausible explanation was that the the signage dropped the
Correlation ≠ causation
accident rate.”
The conclusion still exists despite
Causation = correlation
wrecking these two parts because there
This could be the case, however without further explanation this statement is could be other reasons that uphold the
Three other possible explanations:
flawed.
conclusion in other scenarios.
1) B caused A

2) A and B are caused by C

Perhaps the accident rate dropped because there was a dramatic decrease in the
3) A and B are correlated only and X number of cars on the road during the period of time after the signage was put up.
caused B. Therefore, X (# of cars) caused the decreased accident rate; the signage is merely a
correlation.

Circular Reasoning The author is assuming what they’re trying “Everything I say is true because, if I say it, it is ultimately truthful.”

to prove. This is indicated by the fact that

the conclusion restates the premise(s).
“The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false, for
this claim is based upon the large number of stories in newspapers and violent
Premise and conclusion are the same. crimes. But since violent crimes are very rare occurrences, newspapers are likely to
print stories about them.”

*For examples, see LSAT17-S3-Q20 and LSAT 24-S2-Q8

Confusing Necessary Saying that X is necessary for Y when, in “If the accident rate drops, then the new speed limit signs have been put up.
and Sufficient reality, X is sufficient for Y and Y is Therefore, the signage is sufficient to reducing Edmonton’s accident rate.”

necessary for X.

The conditional relationship is represented as: ARD → NS, /NS → /ARD

X → Y ✓

Y→X ✗ However, the conclusion states: NS → ARD, /ARD → /NS

This argument confuses the necessary with the sufficient condition.

False Dichotomy Pretends to divide the universe into two Correct dichotomy: cats and non-cats (true contradiction)

binary halves, when really this divide is not

a true contradiction. False dichotomy: cats and dogs

The correct dichotomy allows you to split everything you see into two clean groups.
The false dichotomy does not allow you to do this.

*For example, see LSAT 35-S4-Q13

Probability vs. Certainty Could be ≠ must be

“Brandy is likely to head out tomorrow, so long as it does not rain in the evening.
Therefore, if it does not rain tomorrow evening, Brandy will go to the club.”

Even is something is 99% likely, it is not

certain/guaranteed/valid. This is flawed because of the shift from likelihood to certainty. In addition to rain,
there are clearly other factors affect Brandy’s likelihood of going out.

*For example, see LSAT 19-S4-Q1

“Is” vs. “Ought” This involves confusing the descriptive “The house is on fire therefore we should put the fire out.”

(“is”) for the prescriptive “ought”).

That's not a good argument since there may be a number of reasons why we
Descriptive describes how things are.
wouldn't want to put the fire out.

Prescriptive relays values.

We always need a bridge premise to take us from the descriptive world of the
The LSAT will often lump the two together premises to the prescriptive world of the conclusion. I.e. “Houses that are on fire
using a descriptive premise that leads into ought to have their fires put out.”

a prescriptive premise. However, we need

bridge premise that links the descriptive the bridge premise makes the argument air-tight.
with the prescriptive.

% vs. Quantity Percentages don’t necessarily reveal “Group A wants a 10% raise and Group B wants a 50% raise. So, Group B will earn
quantity and vice versa.
more money than Group A.”

You have to account for proportions. This is flawed because the proportions are not accounted for:

- How many people are in each group? Does Group B have more people?

- How much is each group earning before the raise? Is Group B earning more?

*For example, see LSAT 26-S3-Q19

Generalization from Surveys and samples must be random/ Asking a group of 20 year olds about who they are voting for will only tell you who
Survey/Sampling non-biased.
20 year olds are voting for (if they’re a statistically random set of 20 year olds
regarding race, gender, etc.), not who the entire country will vote for.

You cannot make a generalization based

on small sample size or based on one or Here, the sample is unrepresentative of the larger population.
two incidents.

Be wary of questions that make broad

generalizations based on limited samples,
narrow samples, or sample errors.

Generalizations from Generalizations from experiments are It is 65 degrees in a room before we turn the light on (this is the baseline).

Experiment Errors flawed if the experiments:

We turn the light on for 15 minutes.

1) Do not have a control group (not being Now it is 70 degrees in the room.

experimented on for sake of There was a 5 degree change because of the light.

comparison).
We had another identical room that had no light added to it and it stayed at 65
2) Do not establish the baseline of what is degrees (this is the control).
being measured

1
Argument Flaw Meaning Examples

Failing Argument ≠ If someone’s augment is wrecked, that If X makes the argument for going to the movies instead of the bar, and person Y
Validating Contradiction doesn’t mean that the opposite of their invalidates X’s argument for the movies, this does not mean that going to the bar is
conclusion is true.
the logical conclusion.

There could be other reasons that support There could be a number of other reasons for not going to the movies that may still
their argument that have to first be exist (rebuttals, perhaps).

addressed. Also, one has to validate the

contradiction before it can be accepted. To conclude that going to the bar is the way to go, the onus is on Y to make an
argument for it beyond just undercutting X’s argument for going to the movies.

*For example, see LSAT 26-S3-Q13

Relative vs. Absolute Concluding that something is absolute Example 1: “Hippopotamuses are smaller than an elephants. Therefore,
from a relative comparison is flawed.
hippopotamuses are small.”

Classic form: “A is greater than B. Example 2: “Turtles are faster than ants. Therefore, turtles are fast.”

Therefore, A is great.”

*For example, see LSAT 32-S1-Q19

Is is only greater relative to B; A is not
great absolutely (unless proven otherwise).

One Solution ≠ The Only Just because one solution solves a “Because her roof had multiple leaks, Jenny decided to replace her entire roof. It
Solution problem doesn’t mean that particular follows that the best way to fix a leaky roof is to just replace it.”

solution is the only solution nor does it

mean it is the best solution.
There could be a plethora of other solutions that could be better. Also, we just don’t
know that replacing the roof is the best option because there is no comparison
There are many ways to solve a problem. between options.

Inadequate Solution ≠ Just because one solution to a problem is “Because her roof had multiple leaks, Jenny decided to replace her entire roof.
Unsolvable Problem inadequate doesn't mean that the problem However, the leaks did not stop. It follows that there is no way to fix Jenny’s leaky
can’t/shouldn’t be solved.
roof.”

There are many ways to solve a problem. There could be an plethora of other solutions available that have yet to be explored.
We cannot conclude, therefore, that the problem is unsolvable unless every other
option has been extinguished.

Red Herring The argument doesn’t address the relevant *For example, see LSAT 18-S2-Q4
issue; rather, it addresses some tangent
that otherwise captures the readers
attention.

Traditional Fallacy The fact that something is old or has been Slavery
done a certain way for a long time doesn’t
mean that it is right or better.

Novelty Fallacy The fact that something is new doesn’t “Rather than following traditional Diet X, this new diet, Diet Y, revolutionizes the
mean:
health world through its inclusion of kale and spinach. Therefore, Diet Y proves that
- That it is the best course of action
Diet X is no longer an effective health

- That it is better than the old version

- That the old thing is irrelevant or Change for the sake of change is not an argument; there must be something that
ineffective shows the change is better.

Part vs. Whole Must think of this flaw in terms of Example 1: A History professor’s knowledge of the Indian-Pakistan partition can be
properties that do transfer and properties transferred to his students (transferable) vs. a History professor’s intelligence cannot
that don’t.
be transferred to his students (untransferable).

- Transferable properties can transfer

from whole-to-part and from part-to- Example 2: Each ballet dance exemplifies beauty and grace when they dance
whole.
individually. These individual properties could transfer over when they dance
- Untransferable properties cannot collectively, thereby making their performance just as beautiful and graceful; or
transfer from whole-to-part and from these individual properties may not transfer over due to competition between
part-to-whole performers, thereby undermining their collective harmony.

*For example, see LSAT 35-S4-Q18

Beliefs vs. Facts The flaw here is the assumption that Example 1:

because of X, Y is common knowledge, so

anyone who knows X knows Y. This “Macs don’t get viruses. Mom knows I have a mac. So, she knows that my laptop
assumption is merely a belief, not a fact, won’t get a virus.”

unless stated otherwise (i.e. a person is

told about Y and so their knowledge is a The flaw here is that Mom may not know anything about laptops at all, and if I didn’t
fact, not an assumption). tell her about my mac, how would she know that my laptop won’t get a virus.

This argument would be valid if it said: “Macs don’t get viruses. My mom knows I
have a mac. I recently told her that macs don’t get viruses. So, she knows that my
laptop won’t get a virus.”

Example 2:

“A fast radio burst (FRB) is a high-energy astrophysical phenomenon manifested as

a transient radio pulse lasting only a few milliseconds. Dr. Lorimer knows that her
colleague's lab detected such a burst earlier this year. Therefore, Dr. Lorimer knows
that her colleague's lab detected a radio pulse lasting only a few milliseconds.”

The flaw is in that you don’t know whether Dr. Lorimer knows what an FRB is. So
though Dr. Lorimer may know that they detected an FRB, it would be wrong to say
that she knows that they detected a radio pulse lasting only a few seconds, since it
is not stated that she knows what an FRB is.

The argument would be valid if it included: “Along with her colleagues, Dr. Lorimer
took a course on FRB science.”

*For example, see LSAT 28-S1-Q19

Lack of Evidence = False The absence of positive evidence for a X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Claim conclusion is used to undermine the
conclusion’s validity.

2
 Logical Reasoning Question Types
Question Type Question Stems Engagement Level Support Direction Aim Method

Main Point/ - Which one of the following most accurately expresses Argument labelling Down
Identify the stimulus’s Sift through the stimulus and note the context, premises, and
Conclusion the conclusion drawn above?
conclusion from the context and conclusion using the corresponding indicator words. The
- Which of the following is the main conclusion of the premise(s). correct AC will match the conclusion only.

argument?
Be wary of obvious indicators: when faced with two possible
conclusions, the one with the most obvious indicator
(typically the last sentence) is not the true conclusion.

Most Strongly - If the statements above are true, which one of the Non-argument Down We’re given a series of premises Of the five answer choices each MSS question gives you, Most Strongly Supported vs. Must Be True:

Supported following is most strongly supported on the basis of and have to find the most only one will have any support at all. The other four will be
them?
supported conclusion among completely unsupported.
Similarity: for both questions, you are trying to find the
- The information above provides the most support for the ACs. conclusion that follows directly from the stimulus.

which one of the following propositions?

Unlike MP questions, sometimes only a small portion of the
- Which one of the following is most strongly supported stimulus is used to support the right answer choice.
Difference: the correct answer choice for MBT depends
by the information above?
on no assumptions at all (they only depend on the
- Of the following propositions, which one is best To help eliminate ACs, ask yourself: “why should I believe premises stated in the passage) whereas MSS questions
illustrated by the daily farmer's statements?
this?” depend on a tiny little assumption that's not stated in the
- Which of the following, if true, most logically passage.

completes the argument?

Inference/Must Be - Which one of the following statements follows Non-argument Down Take the conditional statements Use the invalid and valid argument forms and understanding MBT is a stronger standard than MSS.

True logically from the statements above?

and anticipate the valid of universal and existential quantifiers to “lawgically” map out
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred outcome/conclusion/inference. the stimulus.

from the information above?

- If the statements above are true, which of the following A P

must also be true?

A→B P → C

- Which of the following can be properly concluded _____ ______

from the passage?

??? C

- If the Daily Gazette denies each of the following

requests, each of the denials could be justified solely You’re trying to find the C (in this case ‘B’), which is the
on the basis of the policy stated above EXCEPT… logical conclusion/valid inference (100% guaranteed).

Don’t analyze the argument; you’re trying to find an AC that

can be 100% verified by the stimulus.

Must Be False - If the critic’s statements are true, then on the basis of Non-argument Down Among the ACs, only one is The correct AC is either a negated inference or a
them which one of the following CANNOT be true?
certainly false and the rest have contradicted (to the point but opposite) statement in the
- If each of the above statements are true, then each of the possibility to be true stimulus.

the following could also be true EXCEPT…

(“perhaps” or “could be true”).
- Each of the principles is logically consistent with the Anything loose could be true: if the answer choice doesn’t
columnist’s conclusion EXCEPT…
relate directly to the premises in the stimulus, it could be true.

- The information above, if accurate, can best be used

as evidence against which of the following Don’t analyze the argument; you’re trying to find an AC that
hypotheses?
can be 100% verified by the stimulus.
- If the statements above are true, then each of the
following could be true EXCEPT:

- Which one of the following situations violates the food

labeling regulation?

Argument Part - Which one of the following most accurately describes Argument description Down You are given a small part of the Label each part of the argument.

the role played by the proposition in the farmer’s argument and asked to select
argument?
one “label” from the five labels Remember referential phrasing to deconstruct convoluted
- The statement that …serves which of the following given in the ACs
ACs.

functions in the author’s argument?

- The assertion that… is used in the argument in which Similar to MP questions b/c they The correct AC is a label that accurately describes the part of
one of the following ways?
are testing your ability to identify the argument that the question stem has selected.

- The claim… figures in the argument in which of the relationships between different
following ways? argument parts. Usually, the argument part selected by the stem won’t be the
argument’s main conclusion.

Weaken - Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the Argument analysis Up You must deny the assumption Approach:

argument above?
gap in the argument provided. - Locate the gap in the support between the premises and
- Which one of the following most calls into question the conclusion

the author’s claim?

- Chose an AC that exploits this gap by denying (weakening)
- Which one of the following, if true, most strongly the assumption that’s being made to connect P → C

counters the doctors' claim?

- DIFFICULT: Which one of the following, if true, indicates Note:

that the criticism of Yasukawa’s research is based on - Correct weakening ACs do not undercut the premise(s) or
a misunderstanding of it? the conclusion; they come for the support only
- For EXCEPT questions, look for 4 weakening ACs
Strengthen - Which one of the following, if true, adds the most Argument analysis Up You must affirm the assumption Approach:

support to the argument?

gap in the argument provided. - Locate the gap in the support between the premises and
- Which one of the following, if true, lends the most the conclusion

support to the conclusion?

- Chose an AC that strengthens this gap by affirming the
- Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens assumption being made to connect P → C

the argument?
Note:

- Correct strengthening AC do not strengthen the premise or

conclusion; only the support

- For EXCEPT questions, look for 4 strengthening ACs

- It may be helpful to use the Sufficient Assumption

approach: translating P and C into ‘lawgic' structure to
identify the assumption gap

Sufficient - Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the Argument analysis Up The support that the premises Translate the stimulus into lawgic by identifying the
Assumption conclusion to be properly inferred?
offer the conclusion is missing a premise(s) and the conclusion. This often takes the form of:

- The conclusion follows logically if which one of the vital assumption that makes the A P

following is assumed?
argument completely valid. So, ??? P → C

- The argument's conclusion is properly drawn if which you have to find a sufficient _____ ______

one of the following is assumed?

assumption among the ACs that B C

- Which one of the following, if true, justifies the above makes the argument air-tight.
application of the principle? You’re trying to find the P → C (A → B) (or the contrapositive)
to make the argument valid.

*Keep the valid and invalid argument forms in mind.

*Be vigilant of mismatches!

Pseudo Sufficient - Which one of the following principles, if valid, most Argument analysis Up Same aim as Sufficient Same approach as Sufficient Assumption question.
Assumption helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
Assumption questions. The only
- Which one of the following principles most helps to distinction is that PSA answers
justify the mathematics teacher's argument? often take the form of a principle
(a general statement) that is not
necessarily an airtight answer,
but it makes the argument more
valid than what the stimulus
offers.

Principle - The principle stated above, if established, would Argument analysis Up Principle questions are similar The correct AC is a principle that you can stuff into the
justify which of the following judgements?
to sufficient assumption argument to make it completely valid (i.e. like with sufficient
- Which of the following principles provides a basis for questions: for sufficient assumption questions).

the argument above?

assumption, you’re trying to find
- The type of situation described above most closely the missing “P → C” relationship When the stimulus has the principle: locate the principle by
conforms to which one of the following propositions?
to close the gap in the identifying the conditional statement (broad, non-specific).

- Which of the following is most accurate expresses argument. With principle

the principle stated above? questions, you’re given the
If the question stem denotes the ACs as principles: locate the
“P → C” relationship in the argument (P and C) in the stimulus; the correct AC will Sufficient Assumption vs. Necessary Assumption:
Conceptual Approach to NA Questions:

stimulus and must find the provide the principle (additional premise) that links both
correct premise/conclusion in argument parts together. "A commonality between necessary assumption
the ACs. Sufficient Assumption: one SA is enough to make the
questions is the conclusion just coming on too
argument air-tight; "they get the work done because they
Necessary - The argument makes which one of the following Argument analysis Up Presented with a premise and Approach:
strong. The mental framework to attack them is
are sufficient”

Assumption assumptions?
conclusion where there is a - MBT Approach: the correct answer choice must be true in to find the answer choice that provides a bit of a
- The argument assumes…
necessary assumption that is not order for the argument to the hold.
step stool to make such a strong conclusion at
- Which one of the following is an assumption on which stated. Without this assumption, - Negation Test: take the AC and negate it, if the negation Necessary Assumption: ("they are needed because they least remotely possible (while looking out for the
the argument relies/depends on?
the argument will fall apart. This does not make sense with the argument (destroys the are necessary”):
trap answers that come on too strong and get
- Which one of the following principles must be assumption is usually subtle and argument), then this is the right AC (Note: review negations the argument closer to validity.) No need to make
assumed in order for the psychologist's conclusion to not very strong. of some/all/none/most). The significance is that if a • You will need multiple necessary assumptions to a valid argument here, just need to get it on the
be properly drawn?
negated AC ruins the argument, then the original form of help the argument come closer to being valid.
scale of validity.”
- Which one of the following is an assumption required the AC is required by the argument.
• You could have 4 necessary assumptions that
by the argument?
help your argument, but they won't all make the
- Which one of the following is an assumption made by P
argument valid because that's what a sufficient
the argument?
P → C (missing necessary assumption)
condition does.

- Which one of the following is an assumption _____

• However, if you throw away a necessary
necessary for the critic’s conclusion to be properly C
assumption, the argument falls apart.

drawn?
◦ I.e. "I play basketball. I'm the best player
- If the above statements are true, it would be necessary Given an argument with premises and conclusion, and we in the world."

to establish which one of the following to conclude have to come up with a subtle/weak assumption that bridges ◦ Necessary assumptions for this argument
that the argument is flawed?
or blocks the gap between P → C
would include "I am alive" and "I know
how to dribble". Throw any one of these
(Note: Necessary Assumption stems differ from Sufficient (1) Bridging: bridging the gap in support between P → C
away and the argument is invalid.

Assumption stems in that the former uses words that (2) Blocking: protecting your argument from wrecking balls
imply dependency—“depends”, “required”, (alternative explanations) A valid argument implies that the argument is (1) fully
“necessary”—and the latter uses words that imply supported by a sufficient assumption; and (2) accounts
complete validity—“properly”, “logically”, “justifiably”) for all possible necessary assumptions.

Method of - The argument uses which one of the following Argument description Down Being asked to describe how the Similar to argument part: label the different parts of the VA → NA

Reasoning techniques of argumentation?

premises support the conclusion stimulus (premises, conclusion, context).

- The argument proceeds by:

(describe what the argument is
Contrapositive: /NA → /VA

- Which of the following most accurately describes the doing/the author’s argument With each AC, ask yourself: “does the stimulus do this?” If it
argumentative technique used?
process). does not, eliminate.

This means that if a necessary assumption is not present/

- X counters Y by:

taken away, then the argument is not anywhere close to

- X uses which one of the strategies of argumentation Be mindful of referential phrasing and abstract language.

being valid. The argument has a gapping hole.

to respond to Y’s argument?

- In the exchange above, the function of Craig's When eliminating wrong ACs, think about argument types
comment is to (describes what the comment does)
that they would describe (in order to become familiar with
- In the conversation, Hernandez responds to Green's what is and what isn’t).
objection in which one of the following ways?

Parallel Method of - The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following Argument description Down You are trying to find an AC that Heavy use of lawgic.

Reasoning is most similar to that in the argument above?

+ matching matches the form of the
- The structure of the reasoning in the argument above argument given in the stimulus. Matching content doesn’t matter: if you find an AC that
is most parallel to that in which one of the following?
matches in subject matter, it is typically wrong.

- In which of the following statements is the logical

relationship between X and Y’s statements most Order doesn’t matter: the order of the premises and
similar to the logical relationship between the conclusion in the stimulus and correct AC don’t have to
statements above?
match

- The argument is most paralleled, in its logical

structure, to which one of the following?
When practicing, be sure to map out all of the ACs,
- Which of the following is most similar in its reasoning regardless of how obviously wrong they are. When it comes
to the argument above?
to timed tests, then quickly eliminate.
- Which of the following arguments is most similar in its
logical features to the argument above?

- Which one of the following arguments illustrates a

principle most similar to the principle underlying the
argument above?

1
Question Type Question Stems Engagement Level Support Direction Aim Method

Flawed Descriptive - The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the Argument description Down Combination of weakening and Approach:

Reasoning argument takes for granted (i.e. “assumes”):

method of reasoning - Identify premise and conclusion

- Which of the following is a questionable questions.

- Anticipate the flaw

argumentative strategy employed by the argument - Ask: What’s the gap in the support between P and C?

above?
You identify the argument’s point - Ask: What’s the argument inappropriately assuming?

- The argument is questionable because it presumes of weakness and the correct AC - Match anticipated flaw to the correct AC.

which of the following without providing justification?

describes how the argument is
- The argument commits which one of the following weak. For each AC, consider whether:

errors in reasoning?
1) It is descriptively accurate (method)

- A flaw in the argument is its failure to consider that:

2) It is describing the flaw

- The reasoning above is mot vulnerable to criticism Correct ACs will support both questions; incorrect ACs will
that:
not; trap ACs will support one and not the other.
- The argument is most vulnerable to which of the
following criticisms?

- TRICKY: The attorney’s argument is fallacious because

it reasons that:

Parallel Flawed - Which one of the following arguments exhibits flawed Argument description Down Combination of flaw and Approach:

Method of pattern of reasoning most similar to the argument + matching parallel method of reasoning - Identify premise and conclusion/lawgical pattern

Reasoning above?
questions.
- Locate flaw in the argument

- The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument - Find a matching flawed argument from the ACs

above is most similar to which one of the following?

You identify the argument’s flaw
- Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical and the correct AC presents a Note:

flaws exhibited by the argument above? parallel argument that matches - Heavy use of lawgic

the form and flaw of the original - Matching content doesn’t matter

- Matching order doesn’t matter: the order of Ps and Cs in

the stimulus and correct AC don’t have to match

Resolve-Reconcile- - Each of the following, if true, contributes to an Non-argument Up Given a Phenomenon- Approach:

Explain explanation of the practice mentioned above EXCEPT:

Hypothesis scenario that relays - Read stimulus and identify the contradiction

- Each of the following, if true, would help resolve the only the appearance of a - Anticipate the bridge

apparent discrepancy described above EXCEPT:

contradiction (not a real one) - Locate the AC that sufficiently explains away the
- Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain/ and you have to choose among contradiction by answering the question, “why?”

resolve the apparent discrepancy…

the ACs something that helps
- Which one of the following, if true, LEAST helps to reconcile, resolve, or explain Note:

explain… (similar to “except” questions)

away the contradiction. - Be sure to read all of the ACs and make sense of the
convoluted ones

(Note: question stems with the words explain, resolve, - Beware of trap ACs that do not resolve the issue, but only
reconcile, paradox, discrepancy, contradiction, etc. deflect it (i.e. humans breathe air but not water. Many
indicate RRE questions) animals breathe air but not water. The latter doesn’t explain
why, so it is not a correct AC)

Point at Issue - X’s and Y’s statements provide the most support for Non-argument Down Two types of PAI questions:
Approach:

holding that they disagree about whether…

1) Agreement: where you must - If agreement: try to find AC that relays what the two
- X and Y disagree over the truth of which one of the identify what the two parties agree on

following statements?
subjects agree on
- If disagreement: try to find AC that relays the
- Their dialogue provides the most support for the claim 2) Disagreement: where you contradiction between both parties

that Denise and Reshmi agree that…

must identify what the two - Per the Chart Method, you’re looking for a “✓ and ✗

- The main issue of dispute between X and Y is:

subjects disagree on (which - Eliminating wrong ACs: if one of the two parties has not
- A point at issue between P and Q is whether:
is the contradiction) expressed an opinion on the AC, eliminate it

- The issue in dispute between X and Y is:

Note:

- Stick to what you know: do not infer beyond the stimulus