Would like to check whether this is true?

[LawSchoolDream]

1. ALL Questions have Conclusion except for some Must Be true/Most supported. Is that correct? Those can have fact sets.

Any other question types that can survive mainly on fact sets?

This is what I think, just wish to confirm. Read all the books

2. For flaw questions, if there exists conditional reasoning, then the answer will be conditional reasoning Correct?
2a. In the answer choices, there will ONLY be ONE conditional reasoning answer choice, Correct?
2b. a Flaw stimulus can contain both Conditional and Causal Reasoning? Please expand on this one I'm a bit unclear. And if so, what kind of answer are we seeking?

Thank you in advance!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi LawSchoolDream,

Unfortunately, nothing on the LSAT is quite as straightforward as we'd like, so a lot of these answers will be "mostly" rather than "always."

Most LR question types contain arguments.

The three that generally do not contain arguments are:

1. Must Be True/Most Strongly Supported
2. Resolve the Paradox
3. Cannot Be True (these are pretty rare in LR)

In flaw questions, if there is conditional reasoning, there is likely to be an error of conditional reasoning (such as a Mistaken Reversal or Mistaken Negation), but not always. In other words, you still need to check the conditional reasoning to see if it is actually flawed and also be on the lookout for any other flaw.

If there is conditional reasoning flaw, there may be more than one answer using conditional wording (which is one good reason that you must read all five answers). If there are 2 answers using conditional wording, you must read them very carefully to determine which is actually describing the flaw in the argument.

While conditional reasoning and causal reasoning can overlap, it's not typical, and the flaw is usually one or the other. If the argument has conditional language, I'd suggest diagramming out the argument to see if it contains a conditional flaw. Be aware that the correct answer may not always use the terms "sufficient" or "necessary" (or their synonyms) to describe a conditional flaw.

For a causal flaw, there are many ways to describe this flaw depending on exactly what the flaw is, such as failing to consider an alternate cause, mistaking correlation for causation, etc..