LSAT Logical Reasoning : Method of Reasoning
Study concepts, example questions & explanations for LSAT Logical Reasoning
All LSAT Logical Reasoning Resources
Example Questions
Example Question #151 : Lsat Logical Reasoning
Joey: We do not need to drink more water. We would only need to drink more water if we were dehydrated.
John: The fact that we are dehydrated is exactly why we need to drink more water.
John's response to Joey functions to:
Contradict Joey's conclusion without giving any reason to reject his assumptions.
Deny an implicit premise of Joey's argument in order to arrive at a different conclusion.
Remaining ambivalent about Joey's conclusion while agreeing with his basic premise.
Imply that Joey's argument is invalid by accepting its premise but rejecting its conclusion.
Proving Joey's example wrong with a counterexample.
Deny an implicit premise of Joey's argument in order to arrive at a different conclusion.
John does not accept Joey's implicit premise/assumption, which is that they are not dehydrated. He then concludes, on the basis that Joey's premise of not being dehydratd is false, that in fact their dehydration means they should drink water.
Example Question #161 : Lsat Logical Reasoning
Unlike his predecessors, the chairman of the board believed in seeking advice from the rest of the board. The company was able to address many of the difficult problems under the chairman’s leadership, particular with a raft of new issues stemming from external forces. Remarkably, the successful company became even more successful on his watch.
The method of reasoning used in the above statement is best expressed as __________.
the success of a chairman of the board should be judged on the opinions of the board members
a chairman of the board's impact on a business is limited in scope
a manner of dealing with a board is best judged by how open it is
a business should only be judged based on the actions of its chairman of the board
the business strategies which lead to success are preferable
the business strategies which lead to success are preferable
The statement ends by remarking on the overall success of the business from a profit standpoint, which is the only value judgment given by the author and is pointed to directly as a result of the chairman's actions. While the strategy of talking to board members is mentioned, it is not remarked upon as inherently a positive or negative.
Example Question #12 : Determine The Method Of Reasoning Used In The Argument
Andrew: We regulate oil and gas, car exhaust, pesticides, and chemicals because, while companies argue that they are necessary for economic growth, they cause environmental pollution that can be harmful to health. Car alarms also cause environmental pollution in the form of loud noises, but we need cars (and alarms), so we should regulate them the way we do chemicals.
Alicia: Oil and gas, car exhaust, pesticides, and chemicals harm physical health, while car alarms are just annoying. We do not need to regulate them the same way.
Alicia's response to Andrew's argument can best be characterized as:
Challenging the strength of the analogy that forms the basis of Andrew's argument.
Questioning the accuracy of evidence about pollution from cars and chemicals.
Arguing that Andrew's argument is biased towards regulation.
Questioning the validity of Andrew's sources of information.
Disagreeing with Andrew's argument that both cars and chemicals are necessary.
Challenging the strength of the analogy that forms the basis of Andrew's argument.
Alicia is questioning Andrew's assertion that the type of harm that comes from car alarms (and justifies regulation in his argument) is similar to the harm that comes from chemical pollution.
Example Question #11 : Method Of Reasoning
The government is considering a new round of massive government spending. The opposition party has firmly come out against this new policy. They have argued that an expansion of government spending would both increase the debt and possibly cause inflation. In spite of these arguments, the government should adopt a new round of government spending. The economy remains below its optimal level of output and interest rates are at an all-time low. Only an increase in government spending can reduce the unemployment rate and get people back to work.
The argument proceeds by arguing that
Showing that getting people back to work and reducing the unemployment rate are incompatible.
Concluding that the goal of reducing inflation and the unemployment rate are mutually exclusive.
Supporting the position of the opposition party.
An expansion of government spending will reduce the unemployment rate.
Presenting evidence that an expansion of government spending would not cause inflation.
An expansion of government spending will reduce the unemployment rate.
We are looking for a premise that helps support the conclusion to answer this question. The stimulus has two premises that help support that the new round of government spending is a good idea; it will reduce the unemployment rate and it will get people back to work. The correct answer provides one of those premises.
All LSAT Logical Reasoning Resources
