99% of Flaw answer choices take three forms

Form 1: Describing what the (flawed) argument does in reaching the conclusion.

Form 2: Believing (assuming/presuming/taking for granted) that a flaw is actually true.

Form 3: Failing to consider THAT / ignoring the possibility THAT something weakens the argument.

1% of Flaw answer choices take this form:

Form 4: Failing to demonstrate/establish/show that a questionable assumption is true.

How to evaluate flaw answer choices, based on each form

Form 1: Describing what the (flawed) argument does in reaching the conclusion.

Ask two questions:

1) Does the argument actually do this?

2) If yes, is that a flaw/problem with the argument?

Two “yes” responses = correct answer.

Form 2: Believing (assuming/presuming/taking for granted) that a flaw is actually true.

CUT assumes, presumes, takes for granted (and without providing justification) and replace with seems to believe.

Ask two questions:

1) Does the author seem to believe this to be true?

2) If yes, is that belief a flaw/problem with the argument?

Two “yes” responses = correct answer.

Form 3: Failing to consider THAT / ignoring the possibility THAT something weakens the argument.

— Cut all language up to and including the conjunction “THAT” and reinterpret everything as a weaken question.

— Cut the words can, could, may, and might; replace them with any other terms.

— Answer that weakens the argument = correct answer.

Form 4: Failing to establish/demonstrate/show that the questionable assumption is true.

— Cut all language up to and including the conjunction “THAT”, reinterpret as a Necessary Assumption (so negate).

Rules of negation

Primarily for Necessary Assumption but also for taking the contrapositive.

Identifying question types

The language on each of these cards is taken directly from actual LSAT PTs, only the names and specific scenarios (when applicable) have changed.

None of the cards in this deck are self-referential. That is, no cards say:

Which one of the following weakens the argument?

The argument above is flawed in which of the following ways?

In fact, exactly one card in this entire deck indicates a Weaken question.

The cards are skewed towards those questions that tend to be more difficult to identify. So lots of good Principle cards.

General strategies

This deck represents general strategies taken from my own curriculum. Some of the verbiage might be unfamiliar to many students, but it’s consistent with other LSAT prep curriculum.

Strategies by question type

The large majority of cards in this deck should sound familiar to experienced LSAT students, but some contain terms from my own curriculum. Fortunately, I try to keep my terms grounded in logic, so they should make sense.

My general four-step approach to LR is consistent with most other LSAT prep curriculum:

1)   Identify the question type (should take no more than two seconds)

2)   Read the stimulus appropriately

Identify conclusion and evidence (except for Inference, Resolve/Explain, and Point at Issue/Disagreement questions)

3)   Formulate an answer

Pre-phrase something when possible, otherwise…

Recall what the correct answer should look like based on the question type

4)   Evaluate the answers by asking the right questions

NOTE

Since the approach to Must be True Inference and Supported Inference is virtually identical, they will both be referred to only as Inference questions.

Quantifiers and other vocabulary

This is a dual-purpose deck. The first is for students to know what the LSAT means when employing terms like “some” or “most”.

But everyone already knows the definitions of words like “all” and “cannot”, so why are these included? This goes to the second purpose of the deck: for students to drill these words into their heads.

On the day of the test, certain words should jump out to students like giant neon signs. Words like “any”, “all”, “cannot”, “never”, etc.

Always remember that the LSAT uses every term with intent and purpose. The purpose of this deck is to ensure that students don’t miss out on that.

Frustratingly, some terms are irreducible. For example, “reasonable” — a 700+ year-old legal concept that lies at the core of American jurisprudence.

So what does it mean to be reasonable? It means to be reasonable (within a given context). For example, “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Same goes for terms like “not all” (which, under the standard rules of English parlance, does not mean “some”) or “no guarantee”.

A final word on the normative terms “should” and “ought”.

Philosophers divide language into two types: descriptive and normative.

Descriptive language is about the way things are, were, will be, might be, etc.

Normative language is about the way things should be or ought to be. It’s essentially a judgment call where things are good, bad, important, better, worse, etc.

Normative language by itself isn’t mild, neutral, strong, or extreme. I mean, I should tell the truth, and I should live the good life, for sure. But give me a break with that nonsense.

Just sayin’…

Conditional language translations

No deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

IF deprivation of life, liberty, or property THEN due process of law

Who says that conditional reasoning has nothing to do with real life?

This deck provides abstract conditional translations, all in the form of If P then Q.

Just for the fun of it, the letters change each time the deck is opened.

The translations apply the basic rules with which students should already be familiar. But just so everyone is on the same page…

Each of the following is equivalent to If P then Q:

P only if Q

Only Q is P

Not P unless/without Q

Any P is Q

Q must occur (in order) for P

Q is necessary for P

P is sufficient for/guarantees Q

NOTE

No X is Y = If X then no Y

Negation exercise

The general rule: Negate in a straightforward, common-sense manner, maintaining the syntax of the answer choice.

Specific rules

1) Do NOT negate restrictive clauses

Example: Cities that have a large population tend to have a lot of traffic

WRONG: Cities that do not have a large population tend to have a lot of traffic

CORRECT: Cities that have a large population do not tend to have a lot of traffic

2) some and many negate as no or none (and vice-versa).

NOTE: Most people drive cars

Negation: Most people do not drive cars

3) any, all, each, every, and the only negate as not all/every/the only

4) If P then Q negates as Even if P then not necessarily Q

5) Some Ps are not Qs negates as No Ps are not Qs = All Ps are Qs

6) any/some: Maintain the syntax of the answer choice

Does not have any choice negates as Does have some choice (and vice-versa).

Contrapositive fundamentals

Any self-respecting LSAT flashcard app has to have some kind of contrapositive exercise, so here’s mine. Well, not really mine.

It’s free to all users not out of the goodness of my heart, but out of the simple fact that this deck is the only AI-written content on this app. I just told it to put together all combinations of IF…THEN statements, up to four elements, and this is the result.

That being said, I defy anyone who might even suggest that any of the content on this app is AI-written. Outside of this deck, not a damn word. You’ll see.