LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

General questions relating to LSAT Logical Reasoning.
 dvieira
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2021
|
#88884
Hello,

I have been drilling method of reasoning questions as their abstract nature is something I am not used to (who would be right?).

I have been using the Bibles to answer questions and guide my learning, but I still seem to be confused on the nature of matching conclusions.

I understand that conclusions have to match in certainty (either absolute, or a certain degree like some or most) but what does it mean when a conclusion matches intent?

Furthermore, I know that the conclusions can differ in positive and negative terms, but does this also mean the entire conclusion of the argument can be the "polar opposite" of the stimulus?

For example: "All of the dogs are mutts" and "none of the employees are liable," the former is a positive absolute while the latter is a negative absolute. Would they still be "the same pattern of reasoning" regardless, or does the difference in positive and negative make them wholly different?

Thank you for your help!
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5850
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#88889
Hi D,

Thanks for the questions! A few thoughts for you:
dvieira wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:56 pm I understand that conclusions have to match in certainty (either absolute, or a certain degree like some or most) but what does it mean when a conclusion matches intent?
It's all variations on that same theme, actually--degrees of force. The specific reference there is to more probabilistic words like "should or "may," or other modal verbs. For example, "You should vote" would be different than "You could vote" or "You might vote." And, "I intend to vote" would be different than "I might vote" or "I'm thinking about voting."

It could also apply to specific limitations, for example, "You are the only person I love" is different than "I love you" (because the second lacks the limitation of the "the only."





dvieira wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:56 pmFurthermore, I know that the conclusions can differ in positive and negative terms, but does this also mean the entire conclusion of the argument can be the "polar opposite" of the stimulus?

For example: "All of the dogs are mutts" and "none of the employees are liable," the former is a positive absolute while the latter is a negative absolute. Would they still be "the same pattern of reasoning" regardless, or does the difference in positive and negative make them wholly different?
They could be, although this is less common than more direct synonyms. In your example, we see absolute force at work: "all" and "none." Those are essentially the same degrees of certainty and so they match per how LSAC does it. It may also help to realize that "none of the employees are liable" is identical to All of the employees are not liable." From that angle, you can see just how similar they are :-D

Thanks!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.