Language Shift elaboration in LR section

[utpalbarman]

folks,
Can you folks provide more insight about the Language Shift that occurs between Premise and Conclusion and between Premises and how to find out about it in an argument.

Also i am doing Kaplan LSAT Mastery Practice and the answer talk about Scope Shift and Language Shift. Can you folks please elaborate about it as i didn't find much information about it in LSAT Bibles.

Thanks
utpal

[Eric Ockert]

Hi Utpal!

I must be honest, I am not familiar with Kaplan's materials these days so I would only be speculating on what those two topics are discussing. But my guess is that they refer to the common occurrence within LSAT arguments, where the conclusion of the argument makes either a subtle shift in language from the premises or broadens the scope from the premises (or both). These issues are both often at the heart of what makes for an invalid argument.

On the language front, an example might be where there are two or three premises, all of which suggest what could happen, and then a conclusion that states, therefore, something must happen. By ramping up to a conclusion of certainty from premises of merely possibility, odds are the conclusion has now exceeded the bounds of what the premises would support.

Likewise, you often will see arguments with premises that are fairly narrow in scope followed by a conclusion that ramps that scope up beyond what the premises will support. For example, you may see a stimulus discussing various facts about heart disease, followed by a conclusion about overall health. So, while heart disease falls under that general heading, there is a good chance that the claim about overall health is much more far ranging than the facts in the premises would support.

The bottom line is to always keep an eye out for the language of a stimulus both in an absolute sense (understanding what the logical terms mean when they are uses) but also in a relative sense (tracking how the force of the language changes throughout the stimulus). If you see a disconnect between the force of the premises and the force of the conclusion, that can create weaknesses within the argument. The same is true with scope. If you notice the conclusion expanding the scope much beyond the scope of the premises, that too can create weaknesses.

Hope that helps!