Conditional reasoning and MBT

[Powerscorehelp15]

I recently started the Logical Reasoning Bible and have a few questions. I finished reading chapters 1-4, and 6.

1. Are all ‘Must Be True’ questions fact sets, or are some arguments with a conclusion? Why does it matter, as in what is the benefit of looking for the premises and conclusions in an argument or the facts in a fact set?
2. Are some question types only fact sets and some only arguments? Is there a specific page that shows this clearly?
3. What role does ‘Conditional Reasoning’ play? Is it used to trick the reader?
4. Is ‘Conditional Reasoning’ only in ‘Must Be True Questions,’ and is it in every single MBT question? Is it in other question types as well?
5. Is ‘Conditional Reasoning’ in fact sets, arguments, or both?
6. For ‘Conditional Reasoning,’ do we just look for the contrapositive to be the answer?

I apologize if this is a lot of questions and if some are not clear. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Powerscorehelp15]

Also, another question I have is for Primary Objective #3. Why does it matter if the conclusion is valid or not? How would that affect the answer outcomes?

[Adam Tyson]

All good questions here, Powerscorehelp15, and the answers will become more clear as you work through the rest of the material and lots of practice questions and practice tests, but I can give you some of a preview here to get you started.

First, almost all Must Be True questions are based on stimuli that have no argument, just fact sets. While you could get a Must Be True question based on an argument, that would be very, very rare. Why it matters has to do with prephrasing - preparing your own answer to the question before looking at the answer choices. If you recognize that a stimulus has no argument, but only a fact set, you can prepare yourself mentally for one of only a few types of questions (Must Be True/Most Strongly Supported, Resolve the Paradox, and Cannot be True). If an argument is present, you will almost certainly be asked some other question type and can prepare yourself accordingly. Every other question type generally requires an argument to be present, although there are exceptions.

Our materials don't list out in any way which types require an argument and which will be based on a fact set, but you should be able to pick that up through continued practice. It's up to you to determine whether a stimulus has an argument or not - that's one of the primary objectives!

Conditional reasoning isn't a trick - it's a type of reasoning that can be used to make arguments that are either valid or invalid. Sometimes you will find conditional claims in a fact set, and you will use them to prove something that must be true or show that something cannot be true. Sometimes they will be found in valid arguments, and you might be asked to parallel that reasoning, or to describe that method of reasoning. Sometimes you will find it in flawed arguments, and you might be asked to strengthen those arguments, or weaken them, or describe the flaw in them, or something else. In other words, you can find this type of reasoning in many different question types, not just Must Be True questions. You will also find that many Must Be True questions have nothing to do with conditional reasoning.

Contrapositives might be the key to answering a Must Be True question based on a stimulus with conditional reasoning, but you might also be asked to "leap over" conditions in a chain, or to parallel the reasoning, or to do lots of other things. While contrapositives are important, they are far from the only thing you need to know about conditional claims! Keep reading and practicing to see all the many ways this type of reasoning can pop up and be used on the LSAT!

As to determining whether the conclusion is valid or not, that will have a lot of impact on what you do next. If it's valid, then you know not to waste time thinking about flaws in the reasoning! Instead you can use that information to help describe the method of reasoning, or to parallel the reasoning, as those are the two most common question types that contain valid reasoning in the stimulus. Most of the rest of the stimuli will have some sort of flaw, and identifying that flaw will help you do better at prephrasing the answer regardless of what type of question it is. Basically, your goal is to understand the structure of the argument, if there is one, and be able to do anything you are asked to do with it or to it. Knowing whether there is a flaw, and if so, what that flaw is, is a major component of gaining that overall understanding!

With time and practice, all of this will become clear, and you will see how to use it all to your advantage. Keep at it, be patient, and you'll get there!