LR Question Types

“Expresses the main conclusion”

• Look for C and P indicators

• What does the author want me to believe?

• Why should I believe this?

• Conclusion…BC…Premise

“Most Strongly Supported” “Supported”

• Answer will be the conclusion

• Find support in the stimulus

• Do not use any outside knowledge

“Follows logically” “Properly inferred”

• If we know the stimulus is true, then we know that [ANSWER] must be true

• They give you P, you’re looking for C

• Find support in the stimulus

• Use valid argument forms & lawgic

"Which of following is assumed” “Follows logically if valid”

• Look missing piece to make argument perfect

• If X true, then C true

• Connects bridge between P and C

“Helps to justify the reasoning in the argument”

• Similar to SA questions but it doesnt have to be 100% valid

• Identify P and C and assumption

• Find answer that connects P and C

• If X true, then C true

“Strengthen” “Adds the most support”

• Strengthen the relationship between P and C

• What would make C more true?

• What info makes P more relevant to C?

“Weaken”

• Weaken relationship between P and C

• Find and destroy the assumption

• Find answer that could lead to diff C

• What would make C less true?

“Plays which one of the following roles”

• Label: Conclusion, Premise, Context, Sub Conclusion, Opposing Arg, Viewpoints

• What does the sentence do for the argument? What is its relationship to the conclusion?

“Strategy of argumentation”

• You are describing the entire argument structure

• Find the answer that describes the reasoning used

• Ask does the argument do this?

“Match the argument structure”

• Heavy use of Lawgic

• Lawgical indicators!! If no conditional statements, use intuition

• Match every part of the argument

• Conclusions must match!!!

“Which principle, Reverse SA questions”

• They give you P → C, you find P and C

• Either A → B or /B → /A

• Cs must match to be correct

• They give you example or rule and you find the other piece

“Most vulnerable to criticism” “Flawed”

• Similar to weakening - Point out what is wrong w/ arg

• Similar to MoR - Flaw in form, structure of arg is wrong

• Two part test for Flaws

  • 1) Is it descriptively accurate?

  • 2) Does it describe the flaw?

“Flawed reasoning”

• Find the flaw in the stimulus

• The flaw should match, but the structure of the argument should also match

• The conclusions MUST match

• Use Lawgic here to ensure match

“Assumption relies, depends on”

• Negate all answer choices

• Which AC when negated, destroys the argument?

• If C true, what MBT

“RRE the apparent discrepancy”

• Stimulus will appear like contradiction

• What is the paradox here?

• What answer choice explains this paradox?

“Disagree about which of following”

• Read their arguments and pinpoint what they are disagreeing about

• Go through the answer choices, apply each to each statement, do they argue this?

• If no opinion, eliminate.