Method of Reasoning, Wording

[obs23]

[p.347] LR Bible: Idea Application.

[Question content removed by Admin. LSAC rules unfortunately do not allow the posting of the text of complete LSAT questions. Thanks!]

I'm slightly confused by "indirectly" and I saw the explanation in the book, but I am still confused as to the takeaway. What would constitute "directly establishing..." and could you provide an example perhaps where we would have the same answer choice in reverse, i.e. what could have been an argument if it were that argument proceeded by "directly establishing that one thing is likely to occur by directly ruling out all of the alternative possibilities"? Or in more abstract terms, when do I directly establish anything?

The similar wording appears in Answer C to Q4 of Method of Reasoning Chapter on page 355. From this, I could infer that indirect support is the one that is not used in the same sentence? So again, direct vs. indirect support...examples if possible.

Thanks much for help.
obs

[Ron Gore]

Hi obs23,

When something is established directly, evidence of that fact or idea itself is provided. So, direct evidence that the trash would be collected on Wednesday would be a schedule showing Wednesday as the date for pick up. Indirect evidence that trash would be collected on Wednesday would be evidence showing it is not to be picked up on any other day of the week, permitting the inference regarding Wednesday by process of elimination.

So, "direct" evidence means evidence tending to support the thing itself at issue, potentially without evidence regarding anything else. "Indirect" evidence means evidence tending to lead to an inference regarding the thing at issue by providing information about related things (here, the inference that trash is picked up Wednesday from evidence it is not picked up any other day, without specifically providing evidence regarding Wednesday).

This is the same process we use in the games section for Could Be True questions. Our process is to focus on certainty, so we apply the rules to knock out the incorrect answer choices, and then by process of elimination conclude that the remaining choice is the correct answer. In other words, we use indirect evidence from the game to find the right answer.

However, in a Must Be True or Cannot Be True question, we use direct evidence, rules about the specific variable or issue they're asking us about, to prephrase the correct answer, instead of using a process of elimination approach.

Thanks,

Ron

[obs23]

All clear now - thanks a lot!

Obs

[Ron Gore]

You're welcome!