Premise/Conclusion
- Look for conclusion keywords
Common conclusion indicators:
Thus, therefore, hence, so, consequently, it follows that, accordingly
Rule of thumb: The statement immediately after one of these words is almost always the conclusion.
Example:
“X is true. Thus, Y will happen.”
Conclusion: Y will happen
Premise: X is true
- Premises usually come first
Premises provide support or evidence for the conclusion.
Look for supporting words like:
because, since, as, for, given that, due to
Example:
“Because bureaucratic mechanisms are engineered to resist change, it is unlikely that bureaucracies will be simplified.”
Premise: bureaucratic mechanisms resist change
Conclusion: simplification is unlikely
Translation guide (full thing in Google docs)
🧩 LSAT Translation & Logic Guide
🔹 Core Assumption Phrases
LSAT Phrase Logical Meaning What It Implies About the Author
Takes for granted that X Assumes X is true The author believes X but doesn’t prove it.
Presumes, without providing justification, that X Same as “takes for granted that X” Another way to say the author assumes X.
Fails to consider that X Ignores the possibility that X could be true The author doesn’t think about or notice X.
Overlooks the possibility that X Same as “fails to consider that X” The author ignores X as a possible factor.
Takes for granted that not-X Assumes X is false The author assumes the opposite of X.
🔹 Causal / Conditional Logic Traps
LSAT Phrase Logical Meaning Common Flaw Tested
Confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary one Treats “if A → B” as “if B → A.” Reversal flaw (like your Q22).
Assumes that a condition sufficient to guarantee a result is also necessary for that result Thinks something that can cause it is the only thing that can cause it. Misunderstanding conditional logic.
Confuses correlation with causation Treats two things happening together as one causing the other. Classic causal flaw.
Fails to consider that correlation may be explained by a third factor Misses an alternative cause. Common LSAT causal trap.
Mistakes an effect for a cause Reverses cause and effect. “It’s raining because people have umbrellas.”
Fails to consider that the cause and effect may be reversed Ignores that the effect might actually cause the supposed cause. Variant of causal reversal.
🔹 Evidence & Sampling Language
LSAT Phrase Logical Meaning Common Flaw
Takes a small or biased sample as representative of a whole Bad sample. Sampling flaw.
Generalizes from atypical cases Uses unrepresentative evidence. Hasty generalization.
Bases a general claim on a few exceptional cases Overgeneralization. Another sampling issue.
🔹 Comparison / Analogy Language
LSAT Phrase Logical Meaning Common Flaw
Draws an analogy between situations that are not sufficiently similar Bad analogy. Faulty comparison.
Fails to consider relevant differences between two cases Misses why analogy might not hold. Comparative flaw.
Takes for granted that the two situations are comparable Assumes analogy is valid. Unjustified analogy.
🔹 Necessity / Sufficiency / Exclusivity Phrasing
LSAT Phrase Logical Meaning Common Flaw
Takes for granted that something required is also sufficient Confuses necessary and sufficient. Common logical flaw.
Fails to consider that something can be true even if another thing is false Misses non-exclusive possibilities. False dichotomy flaw.
Presumes that only one explanation is possible Ignores alternatives. Exclusivity flaw.
Fails to recognize that two things can both be true Incorrectly treats them as mutually exclusive. Either/or flaw.
🔹 Other High-Frequency LSAT Phrases
LSAT Phrase Logical Meaning Common Flaw
Equivocates between two meanings of a key term Uses a word ambiguously (like “obligation” or “action”). Ambiguity flaw.
Fails to consider that the evidence may be consistent with a different conclusion Ignores alternative explanations. Evidence/conclusion mismatch.
Takes for granted that what is true of the part must be true of the whole Part-to-whole flaw. Composition error.
Takes for granted that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts Whole-to-part flaw. Division error.
Draws a conclusion about a group based on a few of its members Hasty generalization. Same as sampling flaw.
Confuses a fact about what is the case with a claim about what ought to be the case Mixes descriptive with prescriptive. “Is–ought” flaw.
Mistakes a condition that guarantees something for one that merely contributes to it Overstates sufficiency. Causal exaggeration.
Translation guide
🔹 Core Assumption Phrases
Takes for granted that X → assumes X is true (author believes it without proving it)
Presumes, without providing justification, that X → same as “takes for granted”
Fails to consider that X → ignores the possibility that X could be true
Overlooks the possibility that X → same as “fails to consider”
Takes for granted that not-X → assumes X is false
🧠 Quick rule:
“Takes for granted” = assumes true
“Fails/overlooks” = ignores possible truth
🔹 Conditional / Causal Flaws
Confuses sufficient with necessary condition → reverses logic (If A → B, assumes B → A)
Assumes a condition that can cause something is the only cause
Confuses correlation with causation
Fails to consider an alternate cause
Mistakes effect for cause
Fails to consider cause and effect may be reversed
🔹 Sampling / Evidence Flaws
Uses a small or biased sample as representative
Generalizes from atypical cases
Bases a general rule on exceptional examples
🔹 Comparison / Analogy Flaws
Draws analogy between situations that aren’t similar enough
Fails to consider relevant differences between two cases
Takes for granted that two situations are comparable
🔹 Exclusivity / Either–Or Flaws
Assumes only one explanation or option is possible
Fails to recognize that two things can both be true
Treats things as mutually exclusive when they aren’t
🔹 Necessary vs. Sufficient Confusions
Takes something required as if it were enough
Fails to consider that something can still be true without another thing
Treats a condition sufficient to cause something as required for it
🔹 Ambiguity / Language Flaws
Equivocates (uses a word in two different senses)
Rest on an ambiguous use of a term or phrase
🔹 Whole / Part Flaws
Assumes what’s true of a part is true of the whole (composition flaw)
Assumes what’s true of the whole is true of the parts (division flaw)
🔹 Other Common LSAT Flaws
Fails to consider that evidence may support a different conclusion
Confuses what is with what ought to be (is–ought flaw)
Assumes something that guarantees a result is the only way to achieve it
Takes for granted that absence of evidence = evidence of absence
