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

Introduction to arguments

Google Classroom

Logical Reasoning Arguments

The Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT assesses your ability to analyze arguments.
In this article, we’ll introduce you to the components of an argument and how to recognize them. If this is new to you, it’s a good idea to spend quite a bit of time on these foundational skills. Work through argument-based questions slowly and carefully as you build up your confidence!

What is an argument?

An argument is a set of statements made up, at minimum, of the following parts:
  • A main conclusion: This statement is a claim that expresses what the arguer is trying to persuade us to accept, whether or not it actually is true.
  • Evidence: Also known as premises or support, the arguer provides these statements in order to show us that the conclusion is true. Essentially, the evidence answers the question, “Why do you believe [the conclusion] to be true?” The simplest arguments on the LSAT have just one piece of evidence; more complex arguments will have several.
Top tip: Order doesn’t matter
There is no set order to an argument’s components; the conclusion could be at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, and the same is true for any other component.
Note: When we analyze arguments in this way, we don’t analyze their tone or style. Be prepared for the argument components to appear in a variety of writing styles.

Conclusion + evidence

The simplest arguments consist of one main conclusion and one piece of evidence. Here’s an example:
  • Sarah will probably receive a job offer, because she has ten years of experience.
Which piece is the conclusion, and which piece is the evidence? Click below when you feel confident in your answer.

Conclusion + evidence + intermediate conclusion

More complex arguments might include something called an intermediate conclusion. Also known as a subsidiary conclusion (or “sub-conclusion” for short), this is a claim that acts both as a conclusion and as evidence. In other words, it’s a conclusion based on evidence, but it’s a conclusion that leads to yet another conclusion. For that reason, the intermediate conclusion can’t be the main conclusion.
Let’s modify our simple argument from above so that it contains an intermediate conclusion:
  • Sarah will probably receive a job offer, because she has ten years of experience. That means that she’ll soon pay me back for the money I lent her.
Can you see how the new main conclusion is that Sarah will soon pay me back? That’s because Sarah receiving a job offer is the reason to believe that she’ll pay me back. So Sarah receiving a job offer is the conclusion for her having ten years of experience, but it’s also the evidence for the prediction that she’ll soon pay me back.

Conclusion + evidence + background information

This argument structure is very common on the LSAT. Background information is provided to us in order to “set the stage” and orient us to the situation. Let’s look at our original argument again:
  • Sarah will probably receive a job offer, because she has ten years of experience.
You might be asking yourself, “Who’s Sarah? What job? Experience in what?” and that’s where background information comes in. Here’s a longer version, including background information:
  • One of this neighborhood’s residents has been complaining about his sister Sarah having been unemployed for so long. She’s applying for programming jobs at many companies, but she only received her first interview invite last week. She’ll probably receive a job offer because she has ten years of experience. In a job market like the current one, anything over eight years of experience gives a candidate a great advantage.
Can you notice how much more time it takes to break down this argument as opposed to the bare-bones argument we first presented? One of your primary goals on most LSAT argument-based questions is to rephrase an argument in its “conclusion, because support” form in order to keep it simple. It’s rare that background information holds information critical to your ability to complete the task.
When we read logical reasoning arguments critically, we read with a purpose, and most of the time, our purpose will be to break the argument into its components so that we can answer the question!

How do we identify the main conclusion?

You can see from our argument above—the one with the extra background information—that the conclusion won’t always be immediately obvious. While there isn’t one way that’s guaranteed to identify the conclusion (since writing and rhetoric is so variable), we can give you a few tools.

Signal words for conclusions

While there is no guarantee that any one word or phrase is introducing the main conclusion of an argument—remember that many arguments have sub-conclusions!—the following keywords are often found at the beginning of a conclusion sentence or a conclusion clause.
  • Thus
  • Therefore
  • Hence
  • So
  • Conclude
  • It follows that
  • As a result
  • Clearly
  • Obviously
  • Nevertheless
  • Nonetheless
These words, when they are present in an argument, can often give you a good place to start when you want to locate the main conclusion quickly.
WARNING! Remember that conclusions don’t have to have any kind of leading keyword at all! Consider the following keyword-less conclusions:
  • The cat will run away if you open the door. That's because the cat doesn't like being inside.
  • 90% of adults in the area returned a survey and indicated that they think crime is on the rise. We need to act quickly to combat this increase in crime.
Therefore, always use context in order to identify the main conclusion.

How do we identify the relevant evidence?

Keep asking WHY?
It’s really easy to get “lost” in the words when we analyze an LSAT argument, so it can be helpful to keep one question in mind when identifying the evidence, or support: “Why?” In other words, “Why does the arguer believe [that conclusion]?”
In the practice section of the system, you’ll often see us break down arguments like this:
Conclusion
  • [Insert conclusion here]
because
Support
  • [Insert the “why” reasoning here].
Other times, it may be easier to understand the argument by starting with the support:
Support
  • [Insert premises here]. Therefore,
Conclusion
  • [Insert conclusion here].
Sometimes a claim is partly direct evidence and partly background info, which makes it more difficult to “weed out” the background info. Keep asking “Why?/Because” as you approach arguments in the Logical Reasoning section, and you’ll start to see patterns emerge, and gain the confidence you need to approach more complex claims. The more you do it, the better you’ll get!

Signal words for evidence

Keywords indicating evidence tend to be more reliable than the keywords that can indicate conclusion. The following keywords—though far from constituting a complete list—often indicate some type of evidence, if not the main support for the conclusion:
  • Because
  • Since
  • After all
  • On the grounds that
  • Given that
  • For
  • As shown by

Looking ahead

As you work through Khan Academy’s LSAT Prep, practice breaking down arguments into their components. Here are the question types in which you’ll almost always find a conclusion and evidence (except in the very rarest of cases):
  • Assumption (sufficient and necessary)
  • Flaw
  • Strengthen
  • Weaken
  • Match the flaw
  • Match the structure
  • Identify the role
  • Identify the technique
  • Identify the conclusion

Related articles

Types of conclusions
Types of evidence

Want to join the conversation?

Log in