Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 7: Logical Reasoning – Video lessons- Identify the conclusion | Video lesson
- Identify an entailment | Video lesson
- Strongly supported inferences | Video lesson
- Disputes | Video lesson
- Identify the technique | Video lesson
- Identify the role | Video lesson
- Identify the principle | Video lesson
- Match the structure | Video lesson
- Match principles | Video lesson
- Identify a flaw | Video lesson
- Match flaws | Video lesson
- Necessary assumptions | Video lesson
- Sufficient assumptions | Video lesson
- Strengthen | Video lesson
- Weaken | Video lesson
- Helpful to know | Video lesson
- Explain | Video lesson
- Resolve a conflict | Video lesson
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Identify the technique | Video lesson
Watch a demonstration of how to approach a question that asks you to identify the technique on the logical reasoning section of the LSAT.
Want to join the conversation?
- These videos are great. I wish I could take the points box that is in the top middle of the page and either move or hide it so I can read the text better. Thanks.(9 votes)
- couldn't you argue that for option A, although the arguer is clearly using a similar analogy to make it's claim, it's not necessarily showing that a set of principle is limited?(3 votes)
Video transcript
- [Instructor] This question asks, "The argument does which
one of the following?" That means that our task is
to identify the technique. One of the choices will describe how the arguer proceeds
or what the arguer does, and the other four choices
will describe something that the arguer isn't actually doing. Pause your video now if you'd like to try this question
on your own, otherwise, let's move on to the explanation. Okay, let's read the stimulus together. Don't concentrate on the details or analyzing what the arguer is saying. Our job is to determine
what the arguer is doing, not what the arguer is saying. Pay attention to the nature of the conclusion and evidence as we read. When a nation is on the
brink of financial crisis, its government does not
violate free-market principles if, in order to prevent economic collapse, it limits the extent to
which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money. After all, the right to
free speech does not include the right to shout "Fire!"
in a crowded theatre, and the harm done as investors
and lenders rush madly to get their money out
before everyone else does can be just as real as the harm resulting from a stampede in a theatre. We've got a really strong
signal right in the middle here. The arguer says, "after all." Remember that "after all" strongly signals that evidence is coming,
and that that evidence is going to support what came
before the phrase "after all." Saying "after all" is a lot
like saying "the reason is." And that's exactly what evidence is. It's a reason for believing something. So let's mark the first
sentence at the conclusion, knowing that the second
sentence is the support. We wanna make a prediction before we look at the choices, so let's figure it out. What is the arguer doing here? The conclusion is just
an assertion of something that the arguer believes to be true, that a government isn't violating free-market principles
in a certain situation. You might be thinking,
"Well, that's cutting "a lot of the details out,"
and you would be right, but remember, we care about
what the arguer is doing, and how the arguer's proceeding. Alright, so how does the arguer support the point that a government isn't violating principles
in a certain situation? By comparing that situation to a completely different
situation, and showing that they're similar enough
to warrant the conclusion. In other words, the arguer
believes that even though the government should normally
act in one certain way, the government is justified
in acting in a different way when the nation is
facing financial crisis. And to try to prove this,
the arguer shows that even though people normally
have the right to free speech, you shouldn't exercise that
right in a specific instance. So what's our prediction
for what the arguer's doing? The arguer is making an analogy in order to make a case
for a specific scenario. And that's what the
question means when it asks, "The argument does which
one of the following?" So we can find a match for
the prediction in the choices. Choice A states that the
argument tries to show that a set of principles is
limited in a specific way by using an analogy to a similar principle that is limited in a similar way. That's a match for what we predicted. We said the arguer is making an analogy to make a case for a specific
exceptional scenario. On test day, if you feel
confident in your prediction, then you can happily select this answer and move to a different question. Let's look at why the
other choices are wrong so that you know what to expect for this question type's wrong choices. B states that the argument infers a claim by arguing that the truth of that claim would best explain observed facts. This doesn't describe what's
happening in the argument. There are no observed facts that the arguer is trying to explain. It's common for the wrong
choices in technique questions to veer away from what's
actually happening in the passage, like we see here. C describes the argument as presenting numerous experimental results as evidence for a general principle. Well, this is similar to B in that there aren't any experimental
results in the passage. So the choice is describing
something that isn't happening. D reads, "attempts to
demonstrate that an explanation "of a phenomenon is flawed
by showing that it fails to explain a particular
instance of that phenomenon." Ah, that all sounds very fancy, but if we try to unpack it a
little, we'll see that the argument's not trying to show that an explanation of a phenomenon is flawed. There isn't any kind
of critique of any kind going on in the passage, so that's why I'm gonna eliminate choice D. Finally, E says that the argument applies an empirical generalization to reach a conclusion about a particular case. Again, let's unpack this,
even if you aren't quite sure what the exact definition of
an empirical generalization is, you can ask yourself if this argument does reach a conclusion
about a particular case. No, it doesn't, there's no
discussion of any specific cases, but rather a discussion
of general principles. Therefore, we can rule out this
choice based on that alone. Just in case you're curious,
an empirical generalization is basically a general statement that's based upon experience. So for example, if I ate an unripe orange every day for 50 years, let's say, I could make an empirical generalization that unripe oranges aren't
sweet, based on my experience. So to recap, for
identify-the-technique questions, you'll want to pay very
close attention to structure. Ask yourself, what is the
arguer doing in the conclusion? Is she refuting a claim,
is she predicting an event? Then ask yourself what kind of evidence the arguer is using to prove her point. Is she using statistics, a counterexample, is she relying on a scientific expert? If you can determine those two things, then you'll be well on your
way to a strong prediction and another point on test day.