How can I work out an argument on the LSAT step by step?

Answer 1

I 100% disagree with Tim.

You should NEVER look at the question first to determine how to conquer an LSAT question.

Looking at the question first is bad advice, completely detrimental to your understanding, and even a waste of time (as you'll likely need to read the question again after the stimulus).

I honestly can not disagree with Tim's answer more.

To crush the LSAT LR, you need to do the following:

Read the stimulus slowly.

Check in as you read, putting the argument in your own words. If you can do this you understand it.

Determine what are premises and what are conclusions (if applicable. some arguments only have one or the other).

If it doesn't have a conclusion, it's likely a paradox or Must Be True/False.

After you identify the argument, ask yourself:

Does this conclusion make sense? The answer to that is likely no.

If the argument said:

Matt is walking down the street. (Premise-It's a fact I'm doing this thing)

Therefore, Matt likes to walk. (conclusion-What? We have no idea if I like to walk just because I am. Maybe I hate walking and I'm in actuality walking to my car to drive somewhere)

You take a look at the argument and see if the evidence adds up to the conclusion.

And you fight that conclusion. Poke holes in the argument as to why the premises do not warrant the conclusion.

Then, and only then, you read the question. Because if you understand the argument thoroughly, the LSAT can ask you whatever question it wants to. Strengthen, weaken, Must Be True, Suff assumption, ect.

And having done the work up front, you predict an answer.

Weaken the above argument about matt walking?

Matt dislikes anything he has to do, and Matt has to walk to his car.

Predicting the answer saves you so much time, because then you aren't getting caught up in the BS answers that are professionally written to mess with you and 80% of them are wrong.

If you go into the answers looking for the correct answer, because you predicted it, you discount the wrong ones very quickly.

This is how you do the LR successfully.

Answer 2

The process you should use depends on the type of question you're being asked. But whenever you see a word like "argument" or "reasoning" in the question stem, you know that you're looking at an argument, and you should start by looking for the main conclusion and the evidence offered in support of that conclusion.

Then what you do depends on what the question is asking. If the question is a Weaken question, you have to show why the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence or premise(s) - you have to basically poke a big hole in the argument. If it's a Flaw question, you have to articulate what the argument's problem is. If it's a Necessary Assumption question, you have to pick the assumption that must be true in order for the conclusion to follow from the evidence.

On some other questions (like Must Be True questions), you are presented with a set of facts instead of an argument, and you have to determine what you can infer from the information you're given. In this case, instead of looking for the conclusion and evidence, ask yourself, "Do I know that (A) is true based on the statements in the paragraph? Do I know that (B) is true?" and so on.