Just ARGUE. That’s all you have to do.

The conclusion in Question #5, Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT is “the ants were not bringing food to their neighbors.” The evidence is “the ants were emptying their own colony’s dumping site.” The problem with this logic is that it’s possible that the ants were feeding their garbage to their neighbors.

That’s nasty, but it’s possible. If it were true, the argument would make no sense. Since I’ve identified the huge hole in the argument, I’ve already answered the question–even though I haven’t seen what the question actually asks yet.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #5’ »

Yesterday, I offered a definition of the word “assumption” using a very simplistic mathematical example. Today, I’m going to dig a bit deeper into the Assumption category by using another super-simple bit of math. Don’t panic! If you passed third grade, you’ve seen this math before.

If this kiss-ass can understand it, then so can you.

Continue reading ‘What “sufficient assumption” means’ »

I came up with this example today while working with a private tutoring student. Consider the following argument:

A equals two. B equals two. Therefore, A plus B equals four.

Sounds pretty good, right? Yeah, I think so too. But believe it or not, for LSAT purposes, something’s missing. That missing piece is called an assumption.

Continue reading ‘What “assumption” means’ »

I don’t like to diagram a question unless I absolutely have to. But when I see “if” in the first premise, and then “if and only if” in the second premise, with “The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed” as the question, then I sharpen my pencil and get to diagramming. Welcome to Section 2, #23, of the June 2007 LSAT.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, II, #23’ »

We’re slightly more than halfway through Section 2 of the June 2007 LSAT, and predictably, the questions have started getting tougher.  If you’re new to the LSAT, you should probably focus on the earlier questions in each section, which tend to be much easier.  Where possible, I’ll try to link the more difficult questions to an easier question of the same type.  Number 15 turns out to be a Sufficient Assumption question.  So far in this section, we’ve done two previous Sufficient Assumption questions:  this one and this one.  You might want to check out those two explanations first, if you haven’t already.

The conclusion of the argument says “every year it will be necessary for all high-risk individuals to receive a vaccine for a different strain of the virus.”  The support for this assertion is “each year’s vaccination will protect only against the strain of the influenza virus deemed most likely to be prevalent that year.”  There’s a hole here.  Your most important job is to identify that hole.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, II, #15’ »

Take a peek at Section 2, number 13 of the June 2007 LSAT, but stop before you get to the answer choices.  Pretend you’re a litigator and the argument is being made by your opposition, an evil soft-drink executive.

Who is suing whom here, and over what, doesn’t really matter.  What does matter is that the evil soft drink executive is your opponent, and you need to try to discredit his argument.  Does the argument on the page make sense, or is it bullshit?   In other words, what is he trying to prove here?  Do his facts justify the conclusion he is trying to reach?  Or is there something missing?  If you were cross-examining this guy, what question(s) might you ask?

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, II, #13’ »

Take a look at Section 2, Question 6 of the June 2007 LSAT.  Don’t bother reading the answer choices.  The answer, as usual, is to be found in the argument itself.  Read carefully.  Read slowly.  Read it twice if you have to.  Go ahead, I’ll be here when you come back.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, II, #6’ »