logical reasoning

This week, I want to talk about soundness. So that's what I'm going to do. YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME, WORLD.

K. Got that out of my system. Let's do this:

Soundness, as a principle, is the simultaneous measure of two distinct aspects of a deductive argument: its coherence and its validity.  OK.  So what’re coherence and validity?  We’re glad you asked!

Remember our tow-chain from two weeks ago?  Let’s get that image back in our minds to continue.  Got it?  Excellent.

So, you’ve heard somewhere that the LSAT is a test that demands that you successfully weigh evidence against claims. OK, sure. But what does that mean? 

First, let’s establish some ground rules: 

So, as part of our occasional LSAT prep series on Logical Reasoning question types, today we’re going to take a look at Point-of-Disagreement (+ Point of Agreement) questions.

First, note that these questions can only be associated with multi-party arguments, in which two distinct arguments are juxtaposed by the test writers. The arguers’ names will inevitably demonstrate a richness of ethnic diversity (which, given how opposed they are to each other’s ideas, demands an answer as to how the LSAT’s authors view the possibility for global harmony.). But I digress…

I recently uploaded a new video to the site (it’s also on YouTube; right here), in which I explain the theoretical basis for smart LSAT prep. I thought you might also enjoy reading it, so I’ve written up what is basically a transcript.

What I want to do here is start by getting you ready in a big-picture, First Principle kind of way for the manner in which we’re going to move you from a place of unfamiliarity, discomfort (and perhaps also fear) to a place of confidence, assurance, and readiness.

So, you’re getting into your LSAT prep in a serious way. Like, you’re thinking of taking things to the next level; you may be ready to move in with your LSAT prep (and we all know that’s the fast track to either a messy breakup, or you and LSAT prep makin’ babies and gettin’ married). So you’re at the place where you’re ready to talk about Evaluation Questions. 

Now, if you’re not sure you’re that serious yet about LSAT prep? STOP READING. YOU MAY NOT BE READY FOR THIS JELLY.

For everybody remaining, OK, let’s do this.

50.4.22

Last time we spoke, we talked about a typical flaw in LSAT Logical Reasoning, and I enjoyed myself so much that I've decided to KEEP THAT BALL ROLLING. We're talking about—you guessed it, without me even telling you with me just having told you one sentence ago!—another kind of error that's typical on the test. This is one of my favorite flaws (but really, how can I pick a favorite? That's like asking me which of my children I love most.* It's Sophie's Choice, is what it is!†).

45.1.18

Today, our Hotness is Oldness, chosen particularly for The One Who Goes By The Name CocoSunshine. Because with a name like that, I can see that I do NOT want to piss her off.

You guys probably know by now how I feel about flaw types on the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT [I LOVE THEM AND WISH I COULD GET MORE PHYSICAL WITH THEM], so it'll come as no surprise to you that we're back on that topic.

68.2.24

Flaw Types on the LSAT and Reading Every Answer Choice in the Logical Reasoning Section

Today, we're going to have a twofer; yes, about flaw types and answering Flaw Questions, but also about how to deal with answer choices, generally (I KNOW. IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE WORKING OUT OF A COMPLETE, COHERENT SYSTEM OR SOMETHING).

Again, we start with our Four-Fold Path™ (not really ™, but as you know, it's important for test prep people to ™ things, and I didn't want to miss out on the fun).

Hot Tip: 66.2.19

As you get deeper into your LSAT prep, you'll find that one of the most important skills on the LSAT—in both the Logical Reasoning and the Reading Comprehension!—is the ability to condense what you read into smaller, salient bits. I call this Structural Reading, and this passage—and its question—provides a typical example of the utility of this sort of reading. The awesomeness will be made more plainly evident if you read the argument first as it was originally presented. So please, take your time. I'll be here when you get back.

Quick Hit: 63.1.2

(I'm talking about PrepTest 63, Section 1, Question 2, if you weren't hip to my jive).

I think that for today's bit of LSAT enjoyment, we'd enjoy doing a Logical Reasoning problem together, concentrating on what I will call here the Four-Fold Path of Velocity (for LSAT Prep!™):