Pattern of reasoning

[Jack Daws]

I keep coming across questions that say "The pattern of flawed reasoning in the argument most closely parallels that in which one of the following" and missing them. They seem to take a long time also.

How can I get better and faster at these?

[LSAC.2010]

I keep coming across questions that say "The pattern of flawed reasoning in the argument most closely parallels that in which one of the following" and missing them. They seem to take a long time also.

How can I get better and faster at these?

Usually in these type of questions, The given choices contains several patterns and the key, What I feel, is to look at the homologus caomparison. like flying of a bird can be compared with another bird BUT flying of a bird and flying of a Butterfly is not a good choice so I normally follow this check list:

1. Category wise question pattern is most close to which answer option?
2. Are there multi option which are close to question pattern? If yes then among those options which one is exact similar to question pattern?
3. In which option pattern starts and ends with same number of steps between start and end the process of pattern.

[Jack Daws]

Thanks for the tips. Tip 1 is kind of what I'm doing now, but I get caught up in the language and it gets confusing. Sometimes they make it so its not easy to see whats happening.

I don't totally understand what you mean in #2.

3 makes sense and I kind of do that, but I get caught by the same problem I mentioned for #1

[LSAC.2010]

Thanks for the tips. Tip 1 is kind of what I'm doing now, but I get caught up in the language and it gets confusing. Sometimes they make it so its not easy to see whats happening.

I don't totally understand what you mean in #2.

3 makes sense and I kind of do that, but I get caught by the same problem I mentioned for #1

"Multi option" signifies the answer choices where "many sense making homologus comparisons are given" Imagine if among answers many choices contain bird to bird flying comparison so then you should look for further constraints of similairty like a bird start flying from the top of mountain of 10 thousand feet height and another bird start started flyingt from the top of high rise building, just as an example. The goal is to find out best pattern among given choices.

[Jack Daws]

Thanks for the tips. Tip 1 is kind of what I'm doing now, but I get caught up in the language and it gets confusing. Sometimes they make it so its not easy to see whats happening.

I don't totally understand what you mean in #2.

3 makes sense and I kind of do that, but I get caught by the same problem I mentioned for #1

"Multi option" signifies the answer choices where "many sense making homologus comparisons are given" Imagine if among answers many choices contain bird to bird flying comparison so then you should look for further constraints of similairty like a bird start flying from the top of mountain of 10 thousand feet height and another bird start started flyingt from the top of high rise building, just as an example. The goal is to find out best pattern among given choices.

Ummmm, ok.

[lawdog]

I think a great way to get better with those is to familiarize yourself with types of flawed reasoning used on past tests. There seems to be a finite number of different flaws that they test over and over. For example, if survey results are used to prove something, we should look for reasons to doubt the survey--an unrepresentative or self-selecting sample. Or, if someone makes a causal argument, we might want to look for the possibility of an alternative cause.

[LSAT Eliminator]

I think a great way to get better with those is to familiarize yourself with types of flawed reasoning used on past tests. There seems to be a finite number of different flaws that they test over and over. For example, if survey results are used to prove something, we should look for reasons to doubt the survey--an unrepresentative or self-selecting sample. Or, if someone makes a causal argument, we might want to look for the possibility of an alternative cause.

Let me expand a bit on lawdog's point here. If you familiarize yourself with the logic that appears most frequently on the LSAT, then you will be better able to spot it when it is used in a question. That translates into you going faster on the test, which is what everyone wants. In questions where you are asked to find an answer that uses the same reasoning, you have a big advantage if you already know the form of logical error that appeared in the argument. All you have to do is then find the one making the same mistake. So if you see an argument making a survey sample error, and you know that it is a survey sample error, it becomes easier to find the answer that has the same kind of survey sample error.

Plus, knowing the typical kinds of logical errors that appear helps you weaken arguments, strengthen them, identify flaws in the argument, and so on. Not everything falls into a nice neat category, but when it does, you can really move fast.

 

[Jack Daws]

yo, thanks Eliminator. Your advice makes sense, and I'm, reading a LR book now that covers the reasoning types in a later chapter. I'll wait until I get through that before getting too worried about it.

 

[wannabeexteacher]

I agree with Lawdog...I found that technique extremely useful