Mechanistic Approach

[LSAT student]

Hello,

I'm confused about two points in this approach because it seems like they conflict. Could someone please help me understand?

First, it says that any "new" element in the conclusion will appear in the correct answer, and then a following point says "elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion usually appear in the correct answer". Would this be an either/or situation? I don't see how both of these conditions can be met, or am I missing something?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi LSAT Student,

Let me give you an admittedly simple example of the mechanistic approach to Justify questions to illustrate what we mean.

Premise: Jane has not taken the LSAT.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jane cannot be admitted to law school.

The "new element" in the conclusion here is being "admitted to law school." That should appear in a correct answer. An element that appears in the premise but not the conclusion is having "taken the LSAT." That is also something to look for in the correct answer. A correct answer here might say, "To be admitted to law school, one must take the LSAT," or (in the contrapositive) "anyone who has not taken the LSAT cannot be admitted to law school." Notice that the element "Jane" is common to both the premise and the conclusion, and does not need to appear in the correct answer.

Side note on the mechanistic method: often there is more than one premise in a Justify question, so you don't need the answer to include all the elements of the premises that don't appear in the conclusion, just some of them.

Let me know if that clears up your confusion--happy studying!

Jeremy

[LSAT student]

That helps! Thanks!!