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

Identify the technique | Learn more

Google Classroom

How is the argument built?

"Identify the technique" questions will ask you to describe the reasoning of an argument—the way it uses support to justify a conclusion. These questions focus on structure, method, and technique. They’re not concerned with what the argument says or whether it’s strong—just how it’s built.

How do we recognize ID the technique questions?

These questions can be asked in a variety of ways. They can all be more or less paraphrased as: “What technique does the speaker use?”
The argument proceeds by
Which of the following is a technique of reasoning used in the argument?
In her argument, the executive’s reasoning does which one of the following?
Sometimes these questions involve two speakers engaged in debate. In these questions, you’re usually asked about the reasoning of the second speaker—for example:
Speaker Z responds to Speaker X's argument by doing which one of the following?

Example

Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed. Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.
Economist: There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning. Indeed, it convinced the country's leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.
The economist responds to the critic by
(A) indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist's prediction was conditioned did not obtain
(B) distinguishing between a prediction that has not yet turned out to be correct and one that has turned out to be incorrect
(C) attempting to show that the critic's statements are mutually inconsistent
(D) offering a particular counterexample to a general claim asserted by the critic
(E) offering evidence against one of the critic's factual premises

How might we tackle this question?

✓ Take stock: Is the question about a standalone claim or is it about a debate?
A good first step is to notice how many sides there are to the argument being discussed. Sometimes, there’s just one speaker making one isolated claim. Other times, a speaker makes a claim that’s presented as a response to some other view. Finally, some of these questions involve two speakers engaged in debate.
So, let’s take stock of our example question: it includes two speakers, the Economist and the Critic, who are engaged in debate. The Critic makes a positive argument, and the Economist makes a negative argument—a rebuttal.
✓ Identify the argument’s conclusion and support.
Now that we’ve identified two sides to the debate, it’s a good idea to break down the conclusion and support for each:
Critic’s conclusion: Your forecast last year was (once again) bumbling
because
Support:
  • You predicted that this country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed, [but]
  • Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.
Economist’s conclusion: There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning
because
Support: Indeed, it convinced the country's leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.
✓ Look for common argument structures.
Theoretically, there's an infinite number of ways to build an argument. There are a few common methods of reasoning that appear again and again on these questions, however, and you can examine them in more detail in our article about Types of evidence.
It’s quite possible that the argument you’re examining doesn’t exhibit a common argument structure; still, when you come across an argument that fits nicely into one of these categories, you can save time and energy by noticing the pattern.
✓ Rethink the argument, replacing specific terms with general ones.
Another way to identify an argument’s structure is to rewrite (or rather, rethink) it in a way that strips away the particulars. This allows you to focus on structure instead of details. For example:
In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country’s economy would soon go into recession
could be thought of as
You made a bad prediction that something would happen.
So in its entirety, the argument could be reconsidered in this way:
Critic’s actual argument
  • In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed. Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.
Critic’s argument, rephrased
  • Your prediction was bad. You predicted that something would happen unless there was a change. In the end, that something didn’t happen.
Economist’s actual argument
  • There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning. Indeed, it convinced the country's leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.
Economist’s argument, rephrased
  • My prediction wasn’t bad. There was a change. That’s why the something didn’t happen.
✓ Predict the answer whenever possible.
For technique questions, it’s very helpful to have a specific prediction before evaluating the choices. Based on the thinking that we’ve done, we could predict that the economist is disagreeing with the critic by showing that the critic’s support isn’t relevant, since there was a change in policy.
✓ Look for answers that describe the structure and eliminate those that misstate the conclusion.
If you have a clear anticipation of the answer—whether it’s a common argument structure that you recognized or a description of the logic in your own words—your next step would be to match your anticipation to the answer.
However, if you don’t have a strong prediction, you can go through the choices and eliminate any that misstate what the arguer is doing in his or her conclusion. While structure is most important, it’s also necessary that the answer accurately state what the arguer is doing in the conclusion. For example, if the arguer is rebutting a common theory, you can eliminate any choices that state that the arguer is supporting or conceding something.

Summary

To review, keep the following tips in mind when you confront an Identify the Technique question:
✓ Identify the argument’s conclusion and support.
✓ Look for common argument structures.
✓ Rethink the argument, replacing specific terms with general ones.
✓ Predict the answer whenever possible, paraphrasing how the argument’s support justifies its conclusion.
✓ If you don’t have a strong prediction, look for answers that describe the structure and eliminate those that misstate the conclusion.

Common Incorrect Choices

  • Not matching: Usually, the wrong choices in this type of question will describe something that the arguer isn’t actually doing. For example, if a choice begins with, “The arguer draws a generalization…” but the arguer only addresses specifics in the passage, then that choice must be incorrect.

Your turn!

Give the strategies you learned in this article a try!
Practice Question 1
Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.
Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.
The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by
Choose 1 answer:

Practice Question 2
Sahira: To make a living from their art, artists of great potential would have to produce work that would gain widespread popular acclaim, instead of their best work. That is why governments are justified in subsidizing artists.
Rahima: Your argument for subsidizing art depends on claiming that to gain widespread popular acclaim, artists must produce something other than their best work; but this need not be true.
In her argument, Rahima
Choose 1 answer:

Takeaways

  • Identify the technique questions can use a single speaker's argument or two speakers' arguments.
  • Try to stay focused on what the arguer is doing, as opposed to what the arguer is specifically saying.
  • Practice predicting the answer so that you don’t waste time carefully considering the wrong choices one at a time.
  • Be ruthless in eliminating choices—as soon as a choice describes something that isn’t happening in the passage, you can rule it out without even necessarily finishing your evaluation of that choice.
  • Identify the Technique questions are close cousins of Flaw questions; both types ask you to describe what the arguer is doing. Flaw questions go one step further to ask you what the arguer is doing that's unsound.

Want to join the conversation?

Log in
  • blobby green style avatar for user JR Nowlan
    Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to JR Nowlan's post “Why put "obtain" as the l...”
    Why put "obtain" as the last word in choice (A) ? Turns the exercise into a "trick" and is also poor grammar. Tends to confuse the student and cause for chasing after the meaning of the verb obtain (should be "was not obtained" because happened in the past NOT the present).
    (31 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user kirchhoff.lindsey
    Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to kirchhoff.lindsey's post “For practice question 2 (...”
    For practice question 2 (Rahima and Sahira) - the correct answer choice, A, says "disputes an implicit assumption." However, it seems that Sahira explicitly states that assumption as a premise in her argument; I don't see how the assumption is "implicit."
    What am I missing?
    (8 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user rashad530
    Posted 4 years ago. Direct link to rashad530's post “What is the implicit assu...”
    What is the implicit assumption Sahira makes that Rahima disputes? I have Sahira's logic as: To make a living = widespread acclaim = not an artist's best work = no govt subsidy. Rahima disputes that widespread acclaim does not equal not their best work. This is why I thought it was C or D and that Sahira explicitly says this.
    (6 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • blobby green style avatar for user Cat
      Posted 4 years ago. Direct link to Cat's post “Honestly, I agree with yo...”
      Honestly, I agree with you. I thought it was C or D, too. On the one hand, I can see how Sahira makes an assumption. However, as you pointed out, the assumption doesn't appear implicit. Rather, it appears explicit. I'm honestly just as confused, lol.
      (5 votes)