Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 8: Logical Reasoning – Worked examples- Identify the conclusion | Worked example
- Identify an entailment | Worked example
- Strongly supported inferences | Worked example
- Working with disputes | Worked example
- Identify the technique | Worked example
- Identify the role | Worked example
- Identify the principle | Worked example
- Match the structure | Worked example
- Match principles | Worked example
- Identify a flaw | Worked example
- Match flaws | Worked example
- Necessary assumptions | Worked example
- Sufficient assumptions | Worked example
- Strengthen | Worked example
- Weaken | Worked example
- Helpful to know | Worked example
- Explain | Worked example
- Resolve a conflict | Worked example
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Match principles | Worked example
Watch a demonstration of one way to approach question that ask you to match principles in the stimulus to principles in the choices. Created by Sal Khan.
Want to join the conversation?
- I think Khan Academy should consider re-formatting these videos so that the whole question & answer setup can be seen in the opening frame. Trying to answer on your own is impossible, because if you fast-forward to see the other choices, you inadvertently get Sal's annotations which give away the answer. Impossible to learn if I'm never given the opportunity to think. :-((27 votes)
- agree 100%. it doesn't help me at all to have him give me the answer. I'd rather attempt the answer on my own then use the video to check my work.(4 votes)
- ANSWERS
(A) Some people are able to write cogent and accurate narrative descriptions of events. But these people are not necessarily also capable of composing emotionally moving and satisfying poems.
(B) Engineers who apply the principles of physics to design buildings and bridges must know a great deal more than do the physicists who discover these principles.
(C) Some people are able to tell whether any given piece of music is a waltz. But the majority of these people cannot state the defining characteristics of a waltz.
(D) Those travelers who most enjoy their journeys are not always those most capable of vividly describing the details of those journeys to others.
(E) Quite a few people know the rules of chess, but only a small number of them can play chess very well.(4 votes) - I wish the thumbnail didn't give away the answer before even attempting to do the question :((2 votes)
- But with C it's different because the original is saying MOST people can tell something but only a FEW of them can actually specify the specifics. So how is that the same? I mean I would have picked C regardless because it is the best choice, but I'm still struggling with how they're the same. I mean I guess the question isn't asking us for the exact... but still lol(2 votes)
- iwas wondering why theres no pdf file of the slides of lessons your teaching.if you upload the slides pdf it would be much more better .
thanks alot for the useful,practical test samples you upload.:)(2 votes) - Khan Academy-you need to get a new prof. for these videos. He is beyond long-winded, doesn't show all of the choices prior to explaining. He has totally taken any education value from this lesson. The same problem as the reading comprehension prof. The other lessons are great. But this guys are not and frustrating to watch.(2 votes)
Video transcript
- [Narrator] The linguist says, "Most people can tell
whether a sequence of words "in their own dialect is grammatical." "Yet few people who can
do so are able to specify "the relevant grammatical rules." Which one of the following
best illustrates the principle underlying the linguist's statements? So, just before even
looking at these choices, I would say that the principle here is, there are people who are
capable of applying fairly sophisticated rules,
without necessarily being able to specify the rules. And the linguist is using that principle in the context of grammar. So let's look at the choices. Some people are able to
write cogent and accurate narrative descriptions of events. But these people are not
necessarily also capable of composing emotionally
moving and satisfying poems. That doesn't feel like the same principle. If they said, "some
people are able to write "cogent and accurate narrative
description of events, "but they have trouble stating
the rules that they are using "to be able to do that." Well, that would be much
closer to what the underlying principle of what this linguist is saying. Here, it's more of the
principle of people being able to go from very accurate
narrative description of events to something that is a little
more moving, emotionally moving and satisfying. So this one does not look great, I'll cross it out right there, but I'll leave it as an
option but it doesn't look-- actually, I'll just cross this one out 'cause this one feels quite different. Engineers who apply the
principles of physics to design buildings and bridges must
know a great deal more than do the physicists who
discover these principles. Now here, they're trying
to make a comparison between those who apply
and those who discover the principles, but that's
not what's going on over here so I'll rule that one out. Some people are able to
tell whether any given piece of music is a waltz. But the majority of
these people cannot state the defining characteristics of a waltz. So this seems to be the
same underlying principle, that people can recognize something. They can recognize
something, so their brain can somehow pattern
match, hey that's a waltz. But they cannot articulate
the defining characteristics. That's the same way that
peoples' brains' can recognize whether something is
grammatical, but they can't specify the actual rules. The actual rules are an
alligas to the actual defining characteristics of a waltz. So, I really like this
choice right over here. It seems to be the exact same principle. People can recognize things,
but they'll often times those same people who'll
recognize, can't tell you exactly the specific rules that make
that recognition possible. Choice D, those travelers
who most enjoy their journeys are not always those most
capable of vividly describing the details of those journeys to others. No, this isn't, the reason
this doesn't feel right is, one it's not recognizing kind
of a classification scenario. In the original one, it's
hey, can someone classify whether something is grammatical or not. And choice C, can
someone recognize whether someone is a waltz or not. And then those who are able to recognize, they still have trouble
articulating exactly why. Here, it's not whether or
not someone can recognize whether something falls in a category. We're talking about
people who enjoy things, but then they're not able
to describe the details of those journeys, which is
a little bit different than being able to recognize
something falls into a category. Or, it's quite a bit different of whether you can
recognize whether something falls into a category and
then articulating exactly or failing to articulate exactly
why it's in that category. So I'll rule that out. Quite a few people know the
rules of chess, but only a small number of them can play chess very well. This is almost the opposite. This is saying, a lot of
people know the rules, but they have trouble applying it
to playing chess very well. This would have been
similar to C or the original statement if they say, "Quite
a good number of people "who play chess can't
articulate the rules." Now that would be kind of
a, any of us who play chess would say that's kind
of a not true statement. But it would have a similar, it would be based on similar principle. But this one definitely isn't. This is saying the other way around. That a lot of people know the
rules, they can articulate the rules, but they can't
necessarily apply them to play a game of chess very well. So, I'd rule that out
and I definitely feel very comfortable about choice C.