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
Strongly supported inferences | Worked example
Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a question that asks "What is most strongly supported?". Created by Sal Khan.
Want to join the conversation?
- For What is most strongly supported questions, will the answer always be stated in the paragraph?(3 votes)
- I think so, but I think it is an answer that is "supported" by the passage. Sometimes, the choices can appear they are supporting, but as he points out, it either makes assumptions, makes it too strong of a statement (overly supporting), or includes info that alters or elaborates a claim that doesn't fully exist. Then again, I could be completely wrong! lol(2 votes)
Video transcript
- Beginners typically
decide each chess move by considering the consequences. Expert players, in contrast, primarily use
pattern-recognition techniques. That is, such a player recognizes, having been in a similar position before, and makes a decision based
on information recalled about the consequences of moves
chosen on that prior occasion. Which of the following is
most strongly supported by the information above. Alright now let's look at these. Choice A. Beginning chess players are better at thinking through the
consequences of chess moves than experts are. Well that just seems
strange as a statement, and if you look at the
original information, they just say that beginning
players typically decide by, considering the consequences. They're not saying that beginning
chess players are better at considering the consequences, I would actually be surprised
if that's the truth. So without even looking
at these other choices, I'm feeling pretty good that
A is not going to be it, because it's not really supported, it's not saying that
beginning chess players are better at thinking through consequences, it's just they rely more on that, than most expert players. So let me cross this one out. Choice B. A beginning chess player
should use pattern-recognition techniques when deciding
what move to make. That one doesn't feel right either, because remember the
pattern-recognition techniques that experts do, they are relying on information recalled about the consequences of moves chosen on that prior occasion. But a beginning chess player
isn't going to have all of that experience. They're not going to
have all of that memory, and that information recall. So, it doesn't make sense, or it's not supported
by the information here, for them to primarily use
pattern-recognition techniques. So I'll rule that one out, I'll rule that one out as well. I'll rule this first one out as well. Okay, so this last, choice C. One's chess skills will
improve only if one learns to use pattern-recognition techniques. So this one is interesting, 'cause what are they saying, they're saying expert players, in contrast, primarily use
pattern-recognition techniques. So this ones interesting, this one feels close, but let's look at the other
choices 'cause this is saying, improve only if. Well, we're not even saying, whether you want to become an expert, we're talking about whether
you want to improve, and in general whenever you
see a really strong statement like this I tend to become
a little bit skeptical. This is like, only if, only if one learns to use
pattern-recognition techniques. We're not even saying that
you want to become an expert, you just need to improve. And I would assume that your
chess skills will improve just by playing more, by even getting better at, these beginner considering
the consequences. The only way to improve isn't through pattern-recognition techniques, that's not implied by
this information here. So talking through it a little bit, I feel good about ruling
this one out as well. In playing chess, an expert player relies
crucially on his or her memory. This is interesting, they're telling us, expert players primarily use
pattern-recognition techniques. That is such a player recognizes, that seems like memory, recognizes having been in
a similar position before, and makes a decision based
on the information recalled, about the consequences of the moves. So if we're talking
about information recall, recognizing things based on
previous similar positions, information recall, this does look like they
are relying crucially, on their memory. So this one's looking good, let's look at this last choice. Any chess player who played other games that require pattern-recognition skills, would thereby improve
his or her chess skills. They haven't made that claim
in this information above, that doesn't seem supported at all. Experts do use pattern-recognition, but it says nothing about
how well you can port those pattern-recognition
skills from one game to another. So I would rule that one out as well, and I would pick choice D.