Must be true questions

[cpando1995@gmail.com]

Hi,

I've noticed an improvement in Logical Reasoning except for Must Be True and Weaken questions. Every time I take a practice test or work on those two types of questions, I can't seem to get better at them like I am at other question types. Most of the time it's because I can't fully understand the stimulus. Could you give me any suggestions on better understanding the stimulus and improving on those questions?


Thank you,
Cindel Pando

[Adam Tyson]

Those are two very different question types, Cindo, and require two very different approaches.

Must Be True questions typically have no conclusion, so there is no argument present. You can usually recognize them by your lack of any strong response to the stimulus, as most of the time the response will be "huh, that's interesting, but so what?" What you are trying to do with the stimulus in MBT questions is to draw an inference based on what you were given, but without bringing in any outside information. Forget what you think you know of the real world - the LSAT exists in a parallel universe that resembles ours in many ways but may not always follow the same rules as ours. Rely only on what you were told, and accept everything you were told as true. If the stimulus says "John F. Kennedy was the 16th President of the United States, and every even-numbered President since the 10th President has been a left-handed albino chicken farmer", then just accept all of that info as being the gospel truth about the LSAT world and draw an inference - John F. Kennedy was a left-handed albino chicken farmer. You may notice that I assumed something there that I was not told - that 16 is an even number - but that's okay, because some basic info like that is okay to bring into the analysis. The LSAT universe is different, but not THAT different!

Where many students go astray on MBT questions is when they bring in their own biases and beliefs and start to make predictions that go too far beyond the stimulus. Must it be true that Kennedy liked chickens? No. Must it be true that he had no other job prior to being elected besides chicken farmer? No. Must it be true that albino chicken farmers make good Presidents? No. Stick to the facts and leave your own ideas outside the door, as they will only get in the way. Choose an answer based on the text of the answer and nothing more.

Weaken questions are a completely different animal! First, they usually contain an argument - there will be a conclusion - and it is invariably a bad argument that will typically induce in you a bigger reaction than a MBT stimulus produces, if you are reading actively and aggressively. You'll get to the conclusion and say "that doesn't seem right! They didn't prove that! There's something wrong here!" Now your job will be to attack the stimulus with new information, something that was not in the stimulus at all (although the stimulus may point you towards it in some way). You WANT to bring in outside help, you NEED to go beyond what you were given, to respond to the author in a way that says their argument is not perfect, maybe even that it's awful. Reach into your experience, your ideas, your analysis of what was said AND what was left out, and then drop a bomb on the author. You don't have to wreck the argument, but just introduce some element of doubt about their conclusion. Of course, wrecking it would be great, but we don't have to go that far in order to weaken. Just be sure to pick the answer that does the most damage.

For weaken questions, focus your attention first and foremost on identifying the conclusion of the argument. What does the author seek to prove? That's the thing you want to weaken - make the conclusion less likely either be directly contradicting it or by undermining the evidence (the premises) that were used to support it. Begin with the conclusion and prephrase something that undermines it, and then you can begin sorting the answers into losers and contenders. Don't look at the answers first, hoping to find something that works, because they authors will have laid many traps for anyone unwary enough to do that. Instead, arm yourself with a clear understanding of the conclusion and a prephrase before venturing into the answer choices looking for a match.

I hope that helps some. I would suggest working on just one type at a time so as not to confuse them, and I would suggest starting with MBT because that will help you not only with LR but also with RC, where you will find a very high percentage of MBT questions requiring direct support from the text of the passages.

Good luck!

[cpando1995@gmail.com]

Thank you for that detailed response Adam. For Must Be True questions, I was taking the inferences a bit too far, but with your JFK example, I can now understand how inferences work in the LSAT. Your response for both question types helped me better prephrase for those questions and understand the underlying concept of Must Be True and Weaken questions. I appreciate all your help!