1
Q
thus
A
conclusion
2
Q
because
A
premise / specifier
3
Q
since
A
premise / specifier
4
Q
for
A
premise / specifier
5
Q
therefore
A
conclusion
6
Q
for the reason that
A
premise
7
Q
hence
A
conclusion
8
Q
in that
A
premise
9
Q
consequently
A
conclusion
10
Q
given that
A
premise
11
Q
as a result
A
conclusion
12
Q
as indicted by
A
premise
13
Q
due to
A
premise
14
Q
so
A
conclusion
15
Q
accordingly
A
conclusion
16
Q
due to
A
premise
17
Q
it follows that
A
conclusion
18
Q
furthermore
A
additional premise
19
Q
it must be that
A
conclusion
20
Q
shows that
A
conclusion
21
Q
for this reason
A
conclusion
22
Q
for example
A
premise
23
Q
for this reason
A
conclusion
24
Q
as indicated by
A
premise
25
owing to
premise
26
this can be seen from
premise
27
we know this by
premise
28
moreover
additional premise
29
besides
additional premise
30
What's more
additional premise
31
After all
additional/Counter premise
32
Yet
premise
33
but
premise
34
However
Counter premise
35
On the other hand
Counter premise
36
Admittedly
Counter premise
37
In contrast
Counter premise
38
although/ even though
Counter premise
39
Whereas
Counter premise
40
Despite
Counter premise
41
Every/ most/ all
quantity premise
42
Some/several/few
quantity premise
43
Sole/ only/ not all
quantity premise
44
In addition
additional premise / specifier
45
Still
Counter premise
46
In spite of
Counter premise
47
must
certainty / power player
48
will
certainty
49
always
probability
50
not always
probability indic
51
as
specifier
52
by
specifier
53
as
specifier / premise
54
if
specifier
55
in
specifier
56
after
specifier
57
on
specifier
58
that
specifer
59
of
specifier
60
between
specifier
61
when
specifier
62
while
specifier
63
who
specifier
64
required
necessary condition
65
depends on
necessary condition
66
have to
necessary condition
67
essential
necessary condition
68
only if
necessary condition
69
if but only if
binconditional
70
biconditionals
all and only, but not otherwise, when and only when, if but/and only if
71
all and only
bicondiitonal
72
but not otherwise
biconditional
73
when and only when
biconditional
74
either/or = to
if not this then that
| sufficient condition must be negated with necessary condition not negated
75
if not this then that
inclusion indictor
76
or
inclusion
77
either
inclusion
78
either/or
inclusion
79
no, none nobody, never
exclusion
80
exclusion indicates
necessary condition must be negated while sufficient is not negated (opposite of either/or)
81
diagramming "unless"
1 throw what comes after "unless" in the necessary condition (must be negated) --> - N
2 the other half put in sufficient position
S --> - N
82
unless indicators
except
until
without
83
"some" indictators
few, many, at least one, several
means 1% to 100%
84
not all, not every
some are not
85
usually
most indic
86
probably
most + probability indic
87
mostly
most indic
88
more often than not
most indic
89
most means %
51% to 100% of the time
90
"most" negates to
some
91
valid inferences come from
two interlocking points or "most" of the same sufficient/premise indicator
that connect to two different necessary condition
A->B
A->C
= some B are C
92
invalid inference
when the some or most inferences are at the end of the chain
93
cause
casual reasoning
94
responsible for
casual reasoing
95
produced by
casual reasoning
96
result of
casual
97
factor
casual reasoning
98
leads to
casual reasoning
99
product
casual reasoning
100
effect
causal reasoning
101
cannot
certainty / power player
102
could
possibility / power player
103
not must
not necessarily (possibility) / power player
104
"must/cannot" conclusions
huge burden of proof
need powerful premise to back up "must" conclusion
easy to attack
must: 100% true
cannot: NEVER
105
"could" conclusion is
easy to prove possibility premises to prove conclusion
(need strong loophole)
1 to 100% = possible/not impossible
106
not necessarily conclusion
need possibility premises to prove conclusion
(need strong loophole)
0% to 99% = not must/does not have to be true
107
loophole can't conflict with
premise
108
must be true equivalent
cannot be false
109
could be true equiv
not necessarily false
110
cannot b true equiv
must be false
111
not necessarily true equiv
could be false
112
not necessarily false equiv
could be true
113
negation of must is
not necessarily
114
negation of not necessarily
must
115
negation of could is
cannot
116
negation of cannot
could
117
if the sufficient condition is absent, you can completely
ignore the necessary condition/statement
118
all, any, anytime
suffificent indictator
119
each, every, everytime
sufficient indicator
120
if, in order to
sufficient indicator
121
people who
sufficient indicator
122
when, whenever
sufficient indicator
123
precondition
necessary indicator
124
only if
necessary indicator
125
the what test
when you see an indicator
ask yourself
"what is the indicator referring to?"
if what?
each what?
what is required?
what is necessary?
have to what?
126
seeing neither +/ nor
not this AND not that
127
assumption chain
the sufficient condition -> valid conclusion -> necessary assumption
the necessary condition does not prove the conclusion
the sufficient condition does that**
128
Loophole assumptions can be
negated necessary conditions
129
negating the necessary assumption will
destroy the conclusion
130
three commandments of the loophole
1. do not negate the premises
2. do not negate the conclusion
3. the loophole is there, even if your loophole does not match one of answer choices there is one you haven't think of yet
131
super common loopholes are
dangling variable,
secret value judgments,
secret downsides, assumed universal goals
132
dangling variable
new words that appear in the conclusion and not in the premise,
because if the author does not connect the premises and the conclusion exactly right, you cannot do it for them
"electronics" is no the same as "invention"
"better developed neural connections" is not the same as "greater influence in the brain
switch something up without you noticing by equating two things that are not the same
133
secret value judgement
the author gets judgy in the conclusion, without defining what those words imply in the definitions. Words such as:
moral/immoral
should/shouldn't
appropriate/inappropriate
prudent/imprudent
good/bad
right/wrong
in the conclusion
134
secret downsides
author compares two things and says one of them is superior without giving you the full story,
your loophole will remind them of the downsides they are not considering.
ex:
The Volunteers for Literacy Program would benefit if Dolores takes Victor's place as director, since Dolores is far more skillful than Victor is at securing the kind of financial support the program needs and Dolores does not have Victor's propensity for alienating the program's most dedicated volunteers.
loophole: what if Dolores have some major downsides in comparison to Victor that we're not accounting for?
135
assumed universal goals
goals that the author just assumes everyone would want such as:
losing weight, lowering cholesterol, making more money, being more successful, being healthier (not a complete list)
Never assume that it's common knowledge for everyone to want one of these things
136
omitted options are
causal relationship loopholes
137
what are omitted options?
no relationship
backward causation
new factor causing one or both relationships
138
3 ways to show "no relationship" in causal loophole
cause happened but the effect didn't
effect happened but the cause did not
the study/survey/experiment is flawed
139
backward causation
reverse causation,
the effect was indeed the cause
vs vice versa
140
new factor
a third factor that caused one or
| both things to happen
141
types of stimulus
DAPP
Debate: two people speaking
Argument: conclusion supported by premise
Premise set: no conclusion and premise do not contradict one another
Paradox: premises contradict another, leading to odd conclusion
142
debate
often occurred (but not every single time) when the first speaker introduce the topic and the second speaker follows with cryptic premise or two without a conclusion. Then you have to use your inference skills to complete the second speaker's though for them.
143
inference design
find the interlocking point and stick to the exact words of the stimulus
144
controversy design
1. Take an inference from the second speaker's statement.
connect the second speaker's premises
(and conclusion, if there is one) to the first speaker. This is your Second Speaker Inference
2. Stick with a "whether" in front of your Second Speaker Inference and smooth out the language
145
controversy pro tips
don't always assume the second speaker is always disagreeing with the first speaker's conclusion,
they can disagree with the premises (because this will also hurt the conclusion)
146
resolution design
1. Split up the two contradictory premises and put a Resolution in the middle
Premise 1,
BUT resolution,
so premise 2 (now conclusion)
2. Fill in the Resolution with something that makes premise 1 naturally lead to premise 2.
The resolution bridge transform the paradox into an argument, they don't have to yield 100% valid argument but the argument have to make sense
147
Powerful questions require
powerful answers
148
Powerful questions desire strongly worded
correct answers
that contains words
such as
all, none, every, only, every time, every, never required, always, whenever
149
powerful ones out of CLIR
R + L
150
Provable questions desire conservatively worded correct answers that contain words such as
could, can, at least, some, at least one, tend to, not all, varies, usually possible, not necessarily, possibly, sometimes, may
151
you should always prefer blank type answer over a blank blank answer choice
conceptually provable answer choice over a misdirected, but provably-worded answer choice
152
powerful-provable spectrum
Power and provability are inverses of one another.
The more provable an answer choice is, the less powerful it is. and vice versa
153
GREAT answer choices regarding power-provable spectrum lie in
the EXTREMES of the powerful-provable spectrum.
154
sHITTY answer choices lie in
the middle area of the powerful-provable spectrum
If an answer choice is neither powerful nor provable, it's always wrong, no matter the question type.
155
strengthen questions
Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true?
156
weaken questions
does this make the conclusion less likely to be true?
157
appeals to
looks to something to support their point
158
purported
something that is claimed to be true, but not probably true
159
apply
relevant
160
corresponding
a similar thing in another situation (analogous)
161
disanalogous
not similiar
162
(pre)supposition/ (pre) suppose
assumption/ assume
163
supposed
poorly assumed
164
counterargument
an argument against a given point
165
inconsistent statements
two statements that contradict one another
166
proposition
a statement
167
treats an X as a Y
pretends that X is Y
168
"used to call to into question"
given as evidence against something
169
"offered as support for"
given an evidence for something
170
"it functions as analogue for"
its similar to something else
171
primary, significant, crucial, significant, vital, pressing, foremost, paramount, imperative
important
172
the best way, the surest way, least harmful, most efficient, least damaging
best way
173
likely
probability
174
would
probability indic
175
could
probability
176
"if" is
sufficient condition indicator
177
"when/whenever" is
S.C. indicator
178
"any" "all" is
s.c. indicator
179
"every" blank.. is
sufficient condition indicator
180
"people who" is
sufficient condition
181
"in order to" is
sufficient condition indic
182
"then" is
necessary condition indicator
183
"only" is
necessary condition indicator
184
"only if"
necessary condition indicator
185
"unless" blank can be
necessary condition indicator
186
"except" blank
necessary condition indicator
187
"until" is
necessary condition indicator (another word for unless)
188
"without" is
necessary condition indicator (another word for unless)
189
"caused by"
causal indicator
190
"because of"
causal indicator
191
"responsible for"
causal indicator
192
"reason for"
causal indicator
193
"leads to"
causal indicator
194
"induced by"
causal indicator
195
"promoted by"
causal indicator
196
"determined by"
causal indicator
197
"produced by"
causal indicator
198
"product of"
causal indicator
199
"played a role in"
causal indicator
200
"was a factor in"
causal indicator
201
"was an effect of"
causal indicator
202
"at least some"
some concept indicator
203
"at least one"
some concept indicator
204
"a few"
some concept indicator
205
"a number"
some concept indicator
206
"several"
some concept indicator
207
"part of"
some concept indicator
208
"a portion"
some concept indicator
209
"many"
some concept indicator
210
"most"
most concept indicator / formal logic relationship indicators
211
"a majority"
most concept indicator
212
"more than half"
most concept indicator
213
"almost all"
most concept indicator
214
"usually"
most concept indicator
215
"some"
some concept indicator / formal logic relationship indicators
216
"typically"
most concept indicator
217
"none"
formal logic relationship indicators
218
"some ..."
formal logic relationship indicators
219
"most are not"
formal logic relationship indicators
220
"some are not"
formal logic relationship indicators
221
"all"
formal logic relationship indicators
222
"segment"
percentage indicator
223
"share"
percentage indicator
224
"the probability ..."
percentage indicator
225
"likelihood"
percentage indicator
226
"incidence"
percentage indicator
227
"ratio"
percentage indicator
228
"fraction"
percentage indicator
229
"proportion"
percentage indicator
230
"percent"
percentage indicator
LSAT Vocab
flashcards
Decks in class (5)
# Cards
