If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Course: LSAT > Unit 1

Lesson 6: Logical Reasoning – Articles
Test prep
LSAT
Lessons
Logical Reasoning – Articles
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice

Disputes | Learn more

Google Classroom

Infer an issue in dispute

These questions involve two speakers who disagree about something. Sometimes, they draw similar conclusions but make opposing claims along the way. Other times, they draw opposing conclusions. Your task is to identify a point of disagreement.

How do we recognize Infer a Dispute questions?

To recognize these questions, look for language about “disagreements” and “points at issue”:
The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Sarah and Paul disagree over whether
On the basis of their statements, Winchell and Trent are committed to disagreeing over whether

Example

Physician: There were approximately 83,400 trampoline-related injuries last year. This suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous and should therefore be used only under professional supervision.
Trampoline enthusiast: I disagree. In the past ten years sales of home trampolines have increased much more than trampoline-related injuries have: 260 percent in sales compared with 154 percent in injuries. Every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision.
The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that the physician and the trampoline enthusiast disagree over whether
(A) trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them
(B) home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries
(C) the rate of trampoline-related injuries, in terms of the number of injuries per trampoline user, is declining
(D) professional supervision of trampoline use tends to reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
(E) trampoline use is an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision

How might we tackle this question?

✓ Identify the conclusion and support of each speaker: A good way to start is to separate the argument's conclusion from its support.
Physician’s conclusion
  • Trampolines should only be used only under professional supervision
because
Physician’s support
  • There were approximately 83,400 trampoline-related injuries last year [and]
  • This suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous.
Trampoline enthusiast’s conclusion
  • I disagree (read: Trampolines should NOT only be used only under professional supervision).
because
Trampoline enthusiast’s support
  • In the past ten years sales of home trampolines have increased much more than trampoline-related injuries have: 260 percent in sales compared with 154 percent in injuries.
  • Every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision.
Breaking down the logic of each argument makes it easier to compare them.
✓ Test each choice and take notes: You can mark each speaker’s initials next to each choice and note whether each speaker agrees, disagrees, or has no opinion. Many students like to use a +, -, or ? for their shorthand, but you can use whatever makes sense to you and is quick. If a speaker doesn’t have an opinion on the claim presented in the choice, you can immediately rule out that choice and move to the next one.
Sometimes, the topic won't lend itself to a "yes/no" or "agree/disagree", but rather a more specific opinion such as "more/less" or "well-prepared/ill-prepared." You can shorthand these ideas in the same way.
(A) trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them
  • Physician: Agree—the physician clearly believes that trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them.
  • Enthusiast: No opinion—careful here! When the enthusiast responds, “I disagree”, it’s not a disagreement of the evidence about how the rate of injury, it’s about whether professional supervision is necessary.
(B) home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries
  • Physician: No opinion—we don’t know whether the physician believes that home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries (as opposed to public trampolines, for example).
(C) the rate of trampoline-related injuries, in terms of the number of injuries per trampoline user, is declining
  • Physician: No opinion—the physician doesn’t address whether the rate of trampoline-related injuries is declining, staying the same, or increasing.
(D) professional supervision of trampoline use tends to reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
  • Physician: Agree—we can infer from the physician’s argument that the physician believes professional supervision would reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
  • Enthusiast: No opinion—the enthusiast doesn’t necessarily disagree with this claim, but rather believes that professional supervision isn’t necessary. The enthusiast focuses on arguing that risks are present even with professional supervision.
(E) trampoline use is an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision
  • Physician: Agree—the physician states this claim clearly in his or her conclusion.
  • Enthusiast: Disagree—when the enthusiast states, “I disagree”, we see from the nature of the evidence that the enthusiast doesn’t believe that professional supervision is absolutely necessary.
(E) is the answer, because one of the speakers agrees and the other speaker disagrees with the claim presented in (E).

Summary

✓ Identify the conclusion and support of each speaker.
✓ Test each choice and take notes.

Common incorrect choices

Here are a few typical wrong choices:
  • claims about which both speakers agree (if the question asks for a point of disagreement), or vice versa
  • claims about which one or both speakers don’t have an opinion

Your turn!

Practice Question 1
Lutsina: Because futuristic science fiction does not need to represent current social realities, its writers can envisage radically new social arrangements. Thus it has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism than is conventional fiction.
Priscilla: That futuristic science fiction writers more skillfully envisage radically new technologies than new social arrangements shows how writers' imaginations are constrained by current realities. Because of this limitation, the most effective social criticism results from faithfully presenting the current social realities for critical examination, as happens in conventional fiction.
Lutsina and Priscilla disagree with each other about whether
Choose 1 answer:

Practice question 2
Gaby: In school, children should be allowed fully to follow their own interests, supported by experienced teachers who offer minimal guidance. This enables them to be most successful in their adult lives.
Logan: I disagree. Schoolchildren should acquire the fundamental knowledge necessary for future success, and they learn such fundamentals only through disciplined, systematic instruction from accredited teachers.
Gaby's and Logan's comments provide most support for the claim that they disagree about
Choose 1 answer:

Practice Question 3
Goswami: I support the striking workers at Ergon Foods. They are underpaid. The majority of them make less than $20,000 per year.
Nordecki: If pay is the issue, I must disagree. The average annual salary of the striking workers at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.
Goswami and Nordecki disagree over the truth of which one of the following statements?
Choose 1 answer:

Takeaways

  • Two people cannot agree or disagree on a claim unless both speakers have an explicit or implicit opinion about that claim. We can’t just guess at what a speaker might believe.
  • It can be helpful to mark a “+” or “-” or “?” and each speaker’s initials next to a choice in order to keep track of whether each speaker agrees, disagrees, or doesn’t have an opinion about that choice’s statement.

Want to join the conversation?

Log in
  • duskpin seedling style avatar for user hardyye0915
    Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to hardyye0915's post “For the first example abo...”
    For the first example about the physicians and enthusiasts, when enthusiasts mention that supervision would not reduce the risks, doesn't that statement mean that supervision would not reduce the number of trampolines injuries? I am thinking about Answer D.
    (10 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user Anna Morrow
    Posted 4 years ago. Direct link to Anna Morrow's post “I'm slightly confused abo...”
    I'm slightly confused about the language of practice question 3, particularly when Goswami says the "majority (of the striking workers) make less than $20,000 per year." How is that not another way of stating what their average annual salary is? Just because it's using slightly different language ("per year" instead of "annual," and "most" instead of "average") doesn't mean it's not providing the same information. Unless I'm misunderstanding the dialogue?
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user Alexander Madison
    Posted 3 years ago. Direct link to Alexander Madison's post “What if total 100 worker,...”
    What if total 100 worker, 80% earned $19000,20% earned $74000,the average annual salary $ 30000. Both Goswami and Nordecki are right: majority less than $20,000; average over $29,000.
    (4 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user K A
    Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to K A's post “Any suggestions that may ...”
    Any suggestions that may avoid having to go back to the stimulus while looking at the choices?
    (4 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • starky sapling style avatar for user ninetales876
    Posted 9 months ago. Direct link to ninetales876's post “I'm confused about Questi...”
    I'm confused about Question 3. Goswami claims that he is supporting the workers striking and in the next sentence he mentions that it's because they're "underpaid." So why is the correct answer not B?
    (1 vote)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • spunky sam blue style avatar for user wangoscar187
      Posted 7 months ago. Direct link to wangoscar187's post “I should think that by pr...”
      I should think that by presenting statistics that numerically shows the average annual salary to be 29000, N indicates that he disagrees about the workers being underpaid. Whereas if payment is the issue, then G should say so or imply this way. Instead, we see no mentions or remote implications in G's argument that he has any opinion on the true substance of the strike
      (1 vote)