Logical Reasoning Challenge Workshop

Welcome to Kaplan's Logical Reasoning Challenge Workshop! At this point,

you should have a firm grasp of the fundamentals of an argument. The four most
common LSAT Logical Reasoning questions Assumptions,
Strengthen/Weaken, Inference and Flaw questions comprise 70% of the
Logical Reasoning sections and, consequently, 35% of the questions on the
exam. This lesson will cover the remainder of the question types in the
Reasoning sections and, in addition, introduce some important tools to help
score higher on Test Day.
In particular, this workshop will cover:

A review of the common question types

Common wrong answer choices
The less frequent question types
o Main Point questions
o Parallel Reasoning questions
o Method of Argument questions
o Principle questions
o Paradox questions
o

Point at Issue questions

A Review of the Common Question Types

Your work should always begin with the question stem, and your preparation
should sensitize you to the elements of Reasoning question stems that appear
again and again.
Take each of the following question stems in turn. What do you see and
think about in terms of each one? What action steps would you take?
Compare your thinking with ours by clicking Continue.
1. The conclusion drawn in the passage above depends on which of the
following assumptions?
When you see the phrase "depends on whichassumptions" you should think that this is
a straightforward Assumption question, one that asks for a central connectiontaken for
grantedbetween evidence and conclusion. Just keep in mind that an arguer can depend
on several assumptions, only one of which will be chosen as the right answer. Your "Do"
is to locate the evidence and conclusion, and look for a necessary connection between

them. Predicting an answer before attacking the choices helps save time and improve
accuracy.
2. The conclusion above follows from the evidence if which of the following is true?
Here's another way for the author to ask you the necessary assumption. The "Do" remains
the same: Explore the connection between evidence and conclusion. What must be true if
the former is to lead to the latter? In assumption questions, also look for such language as
"which of the following is presupposed" or "presumed."
3. Which of the following, if true, helps to support the conclusion presented above?
This wording indicates a Strengthen question. You need to do the same work as with
Assumption questions, but the real "Do" is to make the connection between evidence and
conclusion more likely. For instance, do you perceive an alternative to the conclusion? A
statement knocking out a potential alternative strengthens the logic. Beware of choices
that do the opposite and weaken the argument.
4. Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the claim that most owners of
SUV's are dissatisfied with their purchases?
When you see the phrase "casts most doubt on the claim," you should think: Weaken
question. You need to find the evidence and conclusion and make the connection between
them less likely. For instance, a statement that leads us to believe the SUV owners are
actually satisfied is a weakener. Just like in Strengthen questions, look out for choices
that are the opposite of your prediction.
5. Which one of the following statements is implied by the argument above?
The question is asking you to make an implication from the argument; its an Inference
question. An inference or an implication is something that must be true based on the
stimulus. Make sure to understand each sentence individually, look for connections
between the sentences and evaluate the choices. Also, beware of extreme wording in an
Inference question's answer choices. A correct LSAT inference is in accord with the
author's topic, scope, tone and point-of-view.
6. The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism that the argument
This question, as you can see, is asking for the logical flaw of the argument. You should
think: "There is a flaw in the logic between the evidence and conclusion and therefore,
the evidence does not support the conclusion." Look to see if the flaw is one of the
common flaws we covered during the Intermediate workshop.
Before we cover the rest of the question types, let's look at another part of Reasoning
questions: the wrong answers.

Common Wrong Answer Choices

Our work in Logical Reasoning has so far focused on the process by which you
study the question stem, attack the stimulus, and locate the credited answer.
There is another aspect of the questions that we have yet to cover: the role of the
four wrong choices.
Every LSAT question contains one and only one correct answer, however, it also
contains some very tempting wrong choices. The process of studying for the test
will teach you how the test makers write their correct answers, and how to locate
them. It should also teach you, that standardized tests write their wrong choices
to formula. That is, there are certain perennial types of wrong choices that
appear over and over on the LSAT. If you become familiar with these classic
wrong choices, the more skilled you will be at eliminating the wrong choices
and consequently, finding the right answer.
We already touched on some of the common wrong answer choices in previous
workshops. Let's do a more thorough analysis.
Wrong Answer Choices: Outside the Scope
As you already know, one of the most important skills, when critically reading
test passages, is to focus on the scope of the argument how much of a
particular topic it covers.
Many wrong answer choices touch upon issues related to the topic of the
argument, but that are not within the scope of the argument. These choices are
"outside the scope," and anything that is outside the scope of an argument can
not affect the argument.
We already saw the following passage before during our work on the
Denial Test. Reread this passage and identify the scope.
Today's so-called pacifists are either the victims or the propagators of a false
logic. They claim that weapons reductions would result in a so-called climate of
peace, thereby diminishing the likelihood of conflicts leading to war. But what
are the facts? In the past ten years, during which time we have seen increased
spending for such defense requirements as state-of-the-art weapons systems and
augmented combat personnel, there have been fewer military actions involving
our forces than in any previous decade in the twentieth century. Our own
installations have not been attacked and our allies have rarely found it necessary
to ask for our armed support. In other words, defense readiness is, in the real
world, the most efficient peace-making tool.

This author discusses the effect of our defense readiness on the need for military
action over the past ten years. When you evaluate answer choices, make sure to
keep this scope in mind and reject answers that fall outside the scope.

Wrong Answer Choices: Outside the Scope, continued

Now review the question stem and use the elimination approach to find
the correct answer. Evaluate each answer choice's scope, and then click
on the choice to see whether it may be eliminated.
Today's so-called pacifists are either the victims or the propagators of a false
logic. They claim that weapons reductions would result in a so-called climate of
peace, thereby diminishing the likelihood of conflicts leading to war. But what
are the facts? In the past ten years, during which time we have seen increased
spending for such defense requirements as state-of-the-art weapons systems and
augmented combat personnel, there have been fewer military actions involving
our forces than in any previous decade in the twentieth century. Our own
installations have not been attacked and our allies have rarely found it necessary
to ask for our armed support. In other words, defense readiness is, in the real
world, the most efficient peace-making tool.
Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion of the
passage?
Military actions involving our forces can be instigated by any of a number of
different factors.
Our buildup of weapons systems and combat personnel has prevented our
adversaries from increasing their own spending on defense.
The increased defense spending of the past ten years has lessened the need
for significant military expenditure in future decades.
At the present time, state-of-the-art weapons systems and the augmentation
of combat personnel are equally important to a nation's resources.
The number of military actions involving our forces would have been greater
in the past decade if we had not increased our defense spending.
Outside the scope answers are probably the most frequently appearing wrong answer
choice in the Reasoning sections. So, as we learned in the Reasoning Basics workshop,
it's very important that before you begin evaluating the answer choices, you understand
the scope of the argument.
Now let's take a look at another common wrong answer choice.
Wrong Answer Choices: Extreme Answers
Extreme answers are relatively easy to notice. They contain extreme words

such as: every, all, always, never, etc. The correct answer choice is more likely
to use moderate words such as some or occasionally, etc. You will see examples
of extreme language throughout the Reasoning section. In particular, they are
popular wrong answer traps in Assumption and Inference questions. Extreme
language requires the author to assume or infer more than is allowed from the
stimulus.
The following statements are unlikely assumptions:
Every student prefers social studies to math.
Economic recessions always lead to political instability.
All nocturnal animals are predators.
Extreme language in an answer choice should raise a red flag. The vast majority
of extreme choices are incorrect.
Read the answer choices below, eliminating any extreme answer
choices. Click on each answer choice to see whether it may be
eliminated due to extreme language. Note: the stimulus is not necessary
for this exercisework with just the answer choices.
The argument above assumes which one of the following?
Dovak is consistent in the philosophical convictions that he expresses
through the characters and events of his books.
The plot of From Bad to Worse will have nothing in common with the plots
from any of Dovak's previous six books.
Nothing written by Dovak prior to the publication of his previous six books
took the form of the philosophy novel.
One of the functions of literary critics is to predict that will be in an author's
forthcoming book.
The plot of From Bad to Worse is less important than the underlying
philosophical convictions expressed through its characters and events.
How did you do? Did you spot the extreme language in Choices (B) and (C)? It turns out
that that the correct answer to this question (when accompanied by the passage of
course!) is Choice (A). If you identified Choices (B) and (C) as extreme, you could have
eliminated them, and narrowed your odds to 1 in 3 of getting the correct answer. And
that's without even reading the passage!
Now let's turn to another common wrong answer type, one that is a sure trap for the
unwary test-taker.
Wrong Answer Choices: 180s
Many wrong answers are wrong because they describe the exact opposite of
what the question is asking for, or what the author believes. We call such choices

"180s"they're 180 degrees off.

This trap is constructed in several ways:

In a Strengthen question, an answer choice that weakens the argument.

In a Weaken question, an answer choice that strengthens the argument.
In an Assumption question, an answer choice that is the exact opposite
of what the author asserts or believes.

The key to avoiding this trap is to be aware that it exists. This wrong answer is
designed to fool the test-taker that forgets what the question asks.
Practice: Wrong Answer Choices
Read the following passage and try to identify the correct answer
choice as well as any opposite choices. Click on the answer choices to
see whether it may be eliminated.
Salesman: The revolutionary new Shepherd's Gate Protection System represents
the latest in sheep-tending technology. The built-in sensors recognize the scent
of predators from miles around. When your flock is in danger of attack, the
electronic gates surrounding the flock will quickly slam shut, keeping any
unwanted animals away and your flock will be safer than ever. Sure, the system
is prone to false alarms, but you know what they say: "Better safe than sorry."
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the salesman's argument?
Sheep cannot be injured by the electronic gates when they quickly slam
shut.
Similar electronic protection systems are currently used to protect cattle
from attack from predators.
Roughly half of the incidents in which the gates are activated are triggered
by false alarms.
Some sheep predators have been hunted almost to extinction.
Flocks of sheep are rarely attacked by predators.
Let's now look at our final type of wrong answer choice.
Wrong Answer Choices: Irrelevant Comparisons
An irrelevant comparison is a choice that tempts the unwary test taker with an
insignificant distinction. This trap is usually indicated by comparative language
such as: higher, greater, fewer, more, influential, etc. Note how this wrong
answer trap makes a nice counterpart to extreme choices, where the language is

not comparative, but instead, superlative, categorical or imperative.

Answer the following questions. Click on the answer choices to see
whether it may be eliminated.
The city of Los Angeles recently enacted legislation restricting the possession
of handguns within city limits. Owners of handguns have called the restriction
unlawful, citing federal laws that allow them to possess handguns. In order to
avoid legal battles, the city of Los Angeles and the federal government have
compromised and both have enacted legislation to force handgun owners to
register the handguns or else forfeit them. Brian, who lives in Los Angeles,
owns four handguns, but refuses to register them or forfeit them. He believes
the new handgun registration intrudes on his private life.
What can logically concluded from the statements above?
The new legislation is unfair.
In accordance with the legislation enacted by the city of Los Angeles and the
federal government, Brian will never be able to have an unregistered
handgun.
Handguns are a dangerous element in society and should be completely
outlawed.
Brian will be in violation of the federal and the Los Angeles new law
concerning handguns.
The Los Angeles law will probably have more influence on Brian than the
federal law.
Correct Answer. The question is asking for an inference, so we need to
understand the facts of the stimulus. Essentially, the city of Los Angeles and the
federal government enacted legislation forcing handgun owners to register their
handguns or forfeit them. Brian refuses to follow the laws. So what can we
infer? Well, Brian will be in violation of the new law.
We have just covered four of the most common wrong answer choices in the Logical
Reasoning sections. Knowing how to identify wrong answers will make it that much
easier for you to identify the right answer. Let's now move on to more question types.
Main Point Questions
You will not see many Main Point questions on Test Day (one or two per
Logical Reasoning section). The question tests your ability to find the
conclusion, the main point. When you are asked to find the conclusion, you
should immediately think of the tools we learned in the Reasoning Basics
workshop.
The easiest way to handle this question is to employ the One Sentence Test or

ask the question "What is the author's point?" Remember, to be on the lookout
for keywords.
Let's try an in-format Main Point question.
Main Point Questions, continued
What you will see in the Main Point question are question stems like these:
Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the author?
The conclusion of this argument is
You should then think: "The correct answer takes the scope of the whole
stimulus into account and satisfies the One Sentence Test."
Next, what you should do is predict the statement that the author seems to
support. Evaluate the choices.
Main Point Questions: An Example
Try this sample question. Click the circle by the correct answer choice,
and then click Continue. Remember to use the Kaplan Method for
Logical Reasoning.
Existing environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act
do little in the long run to end pollution. If a person went to a doctor repeatedly
to have burns on her body examined, one would not expect the doctor merely to
treat the burns. Rather, one would hope that he doctor would find out how and
why the woman was getting burned in the first place.
Which of the following best states the main point of the above passage?
(A) The Federal government needs to revise the Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act in order to make them more stringent.
(B) Medical treatments all too often focus on the symptoms of illnesses and
fail to investigate the causes.
(C) Existing environmental laws are ineffectual because they focus on the
symptoms of the pollution, not its cause.
(D) There is little anyone can do to halt the inevitable destruction of the
Earth's resources.
(E) Just as doctors cannot always discover the causes of burns, government
legislation will never be able to address the sources of pollution.

The author states that environmental laws do little in the long run to control
pollution. Her evidence is stated in the analogy about a woman with burns. If a
woman constantly gets burns, a doctor would be expected to find the cause of
the burns. So the author's analogy is meant to distinguish between treating the
symptoms and treating the cause of those symptoms. She then applies this
distinction to the existing environmental laws and hence, is stating: since in
medicine it makes no sense to keep treating symptoms without investigating
their causes, so too in environmentalism it is futile to keep treating the
symptoms of pollution without going after their causes. This is her main point
and is expressed in choice (C): Existing environmental laws are ineffectual
because they focus on the symptoms of the pollution, not its cause. If you asked
yourself the One Sentence test, hopefully, you got something very similar to this.
As for the wrong answers:
The author never says to make the laws more stringent, Choice (A). He simple
wants the laws to address the pollution in the "long run."
Choice (B) completely misses the point of the author. The author's main point is
not about medical treatment. He uses medical treatment as an analogy.
Choice (D) is not in the same tone as the author's stimulus. She is more
optimistic than (D)'s fatalism would conclude. The author does not argue that
nothing can be done about pollution, but only that current attempts should be
refocused.
Choice (E) is extreme. The author does not say that "government legislation will
never be able to address the sources of pollution."
Let's now try a question feared by many students.

Parallel Reasoning
Parallel Reasoning questions are considered to be amongst the most difficult in
the Reasoning section. The question is usually very lengthy and requires you to
compare the structure of the stimulus with the structure of each answer choice.
As a result, the question scares many LSAT test takers. But, in reality, it is a very
manageable question type.
On the LSAT, there are only 3-4 Parallel Reasoning questions and they are in
general very recognizable. So, if you are still having trouble with this question
type on Test Day, skip them and come back to them when you are done with the
section. Remember, the LSAT not only tests your reasoning and critical reading
skills, but also your time management skills. Never be afraid to skip a tough

question.
There are two broad types of Parallel Reasoning questions. The first, the
"parallel logic", will ask something like this:
Which one of the following arguments employs reasoning most parallel to
the statements above?
The second, the "parallel flaw" question might be written as follows:
Which one of the following arguments exhibits the same logical flaw as the
one above?
However, both questions can be handled the same way.
Parallel Reasoning, continued
So what does "parallelism" mean?
Parallel arguments are two arguments that use the same kind of evidence to draw
the same kind of conclusion.
You are looking to compare the structures of the arguments. Do not let yourself
be drawn to (or away from) a choice simply because of the subject matter. Do
not let yourself be drawn to (or away from) a choice simply because of the
lengths of the arguments. Again, you are searching for a choice that uses the
same kind of evidence to draw the same kind of conclusion.
Determine if the following are similar kinds of conclusions-are parallel.
Press continue for an explanation
1. John will win the Olympic medal for the ski jump.
2. The planet Mars will be the brightest celestial object.
The two statements are the same kind of conclusion and are parallel. Both make
predictions concerning their respective subjects and both have the same tone. John will
win and Mars will be the brightest.
Let's try another one.
1. Jonathan will not make the track team.
2. Kerry will go to Asia this summer.

The two statements are not parallel. One is a prediction for an event and the other is a
prediction against an event.
See how "parallelism" works? So far we have covered one type of conclusion: a
prediction (we also saw the negative version of it). There are a few more common kinds
of conclusions. These include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

A policy recommendation
A value judgment
An explanation for a phenomenon
An assertion of a fact
A comparison

Now that you know of the common types of conclusions and have an understanding what
"parallelism" means, let's establish a method to attack Parallel Reasoning questions.
Parallel Reasoning Method
Once you have realized the question type is a Parallel Reasoning question, you
should
1. Analyze the argument and find the conclusion and the evidence.
2. Decide what kind of conclusion is in the stimulus. (prediction, policy
recommendation, etc)
3. Compare it to the five choices and eliminate those choices that deviate.
4. At this point, you may have found your answer. With the more difficult
Parallel Reasoning questions, to find the answer you will need to then
compare the evidences.
Let's try an in-format Parallel Reasoning question.
Managing Parallel Reasoning Questions
What you will see in Parallel Reasoning questions are question stems like these:
The reasoning in which of the following arguments most closely parallels the
reasoning in the arguments above?
The argumentative structure of which one of the following is most similar ]to
that of the argument in the passage?
Which of the following arguments contains flawed reasoning parallel to that in
the argument above?
You should then think: "This is parallel logic. The stimulus and the right answer
both use the same kind of evidence to draw the same kind of conclusion."

Next, what you should do is compare the conclusion of the stimulus to the
conclusions of the choices and if necessary, then compare the evidences.
Parallel Reasoning Questions: An Example
Try this sample question. Click the circle by the correct answer choice,
and then click Continue. Remember to use the Kaplan Method for
Logical Reasoning.
With a kind of tunnel vision, too often women are so obsessed with body
images in the mirror that they cannot see the beauty of their inner selves. As a
result, society will become more and more superficial.
Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the
argument above?
(A) Unable to strike a balance between work and leisure in their lives, too
often people live to work rather than work to live. We should, therefore,
increase the amount of vacation time.
(B) With narrowing of interests, too few students are able to exhibit a wellrounded knowledge of various fields. Consequently, they will not be able to
be productive citizens.
(C) Our nation will become more nave. Looking at the world through rosecolored glasses, some people want so much to concentrate on the positive
that they are unable to see the evil that people can do.
(D) Without specialization, one might become a jack of all trades and master
of none.
(E) Because of old loyalties, some people are unwilling to recognize
corruption amongst their longtime associates. As a result, many businesses
in our society have gone bankrupt.

The conclusion of the stimulus is: society will become more superficial. It is a
prediction. Let's compare this to the other choices. (A)'s conclusion is: we
should increase the amount of vacation time. It's a policy recommendation and
therefore, it can be eliminated. Choice (B)'s conclusion is: they will NOT be able
to be productive. It is a prediction, but it's a negative prediction and can also be
thrown out. Choice (C)'s conclusion is: our nation will become more nave. This
one seems to be a prediction so let's leave it. Choice (D)'s conclusion is: one
might become a jack of all trades. It is also a prediction, but (D)'s tone is not the
same as in our stimulus. The stimulus makes a definite statement that society
will become more superficial, while (D) uses the less concrete word "might." We
can safely eliminate Choice (D). Choice (E) makes the assertion of fact that
many businesses have gone bankrupt and can be eliminated. This leaves us with

choice (C), the correct answer. See how Parallel Reasoning questions can be
quite manageable.
Let's now try Method of Argument questions.
Method of Argument Questions
As with many other Logical Reasoning questions, this relatively marginal (one
per Logical Reasoning Section) question tests your ability to analyze the
structure of an argument. However, as opposed to the other Reasoning question
types, you are not tested on "what" the author is saying. Instead, your task is to
recognize how an argument is composed or in other words, the process of how
the author develops his or her point.
Method of Argument questions require the test takers to demonstrate an
understanding of the how an argument is built. This question type rewards
people who can look beneath the specifics of an argument's content, to its
underlying structure.
Let's try one.
Read the following argument and determine how the author makes his
argument.
The Citrus Professional Baseball League is the process of negotiations with the
players' union to settle on revenue sharing. Presently, the contract negotiations
are stalled and many owners fear that the players will go on strike this Monday.
However, it is in the best interest for the players' union not to strike. After the
local basketball union went on strike, attendance at games was low for several
years. As a result, the basketball league went bankrupt and all the players
permanently lost their jobs.
The author uses an analogous situation to support his conclusion. S/he uses the example
of the basketball union to conclude that the baseball union should not go on strike.
Let's try an in-format question.
Managing Method of Argument Questions
What you will see in Method of Argument questions are question stems like
these:
Which one of the following accurately describes the argumentative strategy
employed?

The author of the argument uses which of the following to promote his view?
You should then think: "Method of Argument: I have to focus on how the author
is making his or her point."
Next, what you should do is paraphrase the argument in the simplest terms
possible and test each choice rigorously against the stimulus
[Page 20 of 33]
Method of Argument: An Example
Try this sample question. Click the circle by the correct answer choice,
and then click Continue. Remember to use the Kaplan Method for
Logical Reasoning.
Barely a decade ago, this city was a mecca for serious and accomplished artists,
writers, and performers. Now, however, the legitimate theaters produce trivia,
the galleries hang art formerly only seen on sidewalks, and the literary journals
offer recycled ideas, safe for the unthinking. What happened? There is a oneword answer: greed. Entrepreneurs discovered that the arts could be a source of
financial gain. As it became more profitable to cater to mass taste, the
middleman sought only the quick buck. Truly creative talents succumbed to the
dismal decline in taste or left for more congenial locations. What had been high
art became big business. Undoubtedly, the bleak cultural landscape of our city
today is the result of the intrusion of materialism and marketing concepts into
the world of art.
The author of the passage above makes her argument principally by
(A) using an analogy to validate on explanation for a phenomenon.
(B) concluding that the results of a scenario were also the cause of the
scenario.
(C) describing a suitable mechanism, a hypothesis, that a certain
phenomenon occurred.
(D) deriving a general conclusion of the fate of all art forms.
(E) making a generalization that is used to justify a claim made about a
particular case.

The author of this question tells us that her city used to be a center of high art,
but now popular even tacky art dominates. She explains this as being the
result of greedy entrepreneurs who realized that "it was more profitable to cater
to mass taste." Elaborately and at some length, the author paints a portrayal of a
once culturally thriving city turned into a bleak wasteland by the greedy

capitalists. So what is the author doing? S/he is providing an explanation or a

suitable mechanism, hypothesis (the greed of entrepreneurs) for a phenomenon
(bleak, bourgeois art), choice (C).
Let's look at the wrong answers
Is the author drawing an analogy as choice (A) says? No, an analogy explains
one thing by comparing it to something else, and despite the metaphor "mecca"
in the first sentence, the author's argument does not proceed by analogy; the
situation is not discussed with reference to any other situation.
Choice (B) is incorrect too. (B) says the author is employing circular reasoning.
In other words, the conclusion is the cause of the evidence and the evidence is
the cause of the conclusion. This is not done here. Circular reasoning is 99% of
the time the wrong answer.
Choice (D) says the author is drawing a conclusion about all art forms. No, he is
deriving a conclusion on the art forms only in this city. This choice is too
extreme.
Choice (E) says the author is making a generalization. Well, he is not making a
generalization to support a claim. He is using an hypothesis or an explanation to
support his claim.
Let's move on to another question type.
Principle Questions
In principle questions, you will be generally given a fact pattern such as a story
or situation with a very specific outcome or just a statement on an author's point
of view. Your task is to find the specific rules and regulations that the stimulus
follows. Each of the answer choices will be a principle usually written to sound
like a real-life law. The correct answer will sum up the fact pattern or in other
words, describe the regulations the stimulus follows. The principle question
could also be reversed where the regulations and rules are in the stimulus and
the answer choices are situations that follow these regulations and rules.
Principle questions involve fitting a specific situation into a global generality
(or, occasionally, vice versa).
Let's try an example.
In the following argument, think of the principle that best accounts for
the author's position. Press the continue button to read an analysis.
Sandra has been in a car accident and she will require medical attention. Since
Sandra is Steve's sister, Steve will have to leave his soccer game and visit her in
the hospital.

The principle for this argument could sound something like this: "When a relative is ill,
one should provide support, regardless of personal inconvenience." See how that works?
In many ways the principle is also a strengthener. The principle that relatives should
provide support strengthens the argument that Steve should help Mary.
On the next page, let's try an in-format question.
Managing Principle Questions
What you will see in Principle questions are question stems like these:
Which of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the author's
reasoning?
The author most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?
You should then think: "A Principle question. The right answer will connect a
general proposition to a specific situation."
Next, what you should do is meticulously compare each element of the specific
situation to the principle at hand, in search of the pair that's most closely related.
Principle Questions: An Example
Try this sample question. Click the circle by the correct answer choice,
and then click Continue. Remember to use the Kaplan Method for
Logical Reasoning.
If you start with two equal amounts of coffee heated to the same temperature,
and two equal quantities of milk chilled to the same temperature, and you add
one of the quantities of milk to one of the coffees, and add the other quantity of
milk to the other coffee, you will wind up with two equal quantities of milk and
coffee, both at the same temperature provided, of course, you mix them both
thoroughly.
Which of the following principles best explains that phenomenon described
above?
(A) For every distinct effect, there must be a distinct cause.
(B) All phenomena are relative to the perspective of an observer.
(C) If there is no difference in the causes, there can be no difference in the
effects.
(D) A perfect correlation between events does not necessarily imply a causal
relation between those events.
(E) If there is a difference in the way the parts are combined, there will be a

difference in the wholes that result.

This question brings us through the process of making two identical cups of
coffee with milk. What we find is that if we use identical quantities of the same
ingredients heated or chilled to identical temperatures, we get two identical
mixtures. We must now find the principle that underlies the results. Basically,
we are looking for the answer choice that states the obvious if you mix two
sets of identical things, you will get identical results. The correct answer is
choice (C) if there is no difference in the causes, there will be no difference
in the effects, the causes of course being the identical ingredients, and the effects
being the identical cups of coffee with milk.
As for the wrong choices: choice (A) says that for every distinct effect, there
must be a distinct cause. Yes, perhaps, but so what? That doesn't explain the
phenomenon because it fails to state that the same causes yield the same results.
Choice (B) brings in a real red herring the perspective of the observer. This
does absolutely nothing to explain the phenomenon in the scenario.
Furthermore, the author is actually contradicting choice (B). According to the
stimulus, the mixing process will produce identical results every time
regardless of the observer's perspective. Choice (D) would have you believe that
even though there may be a correlation or equivalent relationship between the
two mixtures, this does not imply that there's a causal relation. This may be true
under other circumstances, but in this situation, the effects are identical
BECAUSE the causes are identical. Finally, choice (E) might make sense if
there were a difference in the way the parts were combined, and then we saw a
difference in the results, but in the scenario described by the author, there isn't
any difference, so it's irrelevant to say otherwise. Choice (E) therefore does not
describe the phenomenon; only choice (C) does, so (C) is the correct answer.
Let's try another type of question.

Paradoxical Arguments
Some of the arguments on your test will present you with a paradox, or an
apparent discrepancy.
A paradox or discrepancy exists when an argument contains two or more
seemingly inconsistent statements. It's your job to find the answer choice that
"explains the surprising result."
You will recognize a surprising argument by the contradiction it suggests. An
argument of this type will lead you to expect point A, but will then tell you that
point Z is really the case. The correct answer to this question type will be the

choice that reconciles the seemingly inconsistent statements.

Let's try an example.
Paradox Questions, continued
Try to identify and then resolve the discrepancy that appears in the
following argument. Click Continue to compare your answer to ours.
Fifty-seven percent of the registered voters in this district claimed to support the
Democratic candidate, and yet the Republican candidate won the election with
55 percent of the vote.
Discrepancy: The Republican won even though more registered voters claimed to
support the Democrat.
Resolution: A few explanations could resolve this paradox. It could be that the surveyed
voters were not telling the truth. Or maybe many of the registered voters who claimed to
support the Democrat did not vote. If either of these statements were proven true, then
there would no longer be a discrepancy in the argument; the two facts could readily
coexist.
Here are some tips for handling Paradox questions:

Before attempting to resolve a paradox, make sure you have a good grasp of the
paradoxical situation.
If you can, try predicting an answer that would resolve the paradox.
Resolving paradoxes is often a matter of recognizing that two things that are
being compared are not really the same thing. Look for an additional fact that
allows both parts of the "paradox" to be true.
The right answer often goes beyond resolving the situationoften it shows that
the two seemingly inconsistent statements are in fact logically linked

Managing Paradox Questions

What you will see in Paradox questions are question stems like these:
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the apparent
discrepancy between the two findings?
Which one of the following, if true, would provide the most logical explanations
of the apparent paradox?
You should then think: "Paradox. The correct answer will explain the apparent

mystery."
Next, what you should do is evaluate the stimulus and understand the paradox.
Try to predict an answer and evaluate the answer choices.
Paradox Questions: An Example
Try this sample question. Click the circle by the correct answer choice,
and then click Continue. Remember to use the Kaplan Method for
Logical Reasoning.
Statistics show that more than half of the nation's murder victims knew their
assailants; in fact, 24 percent last year were killed by relatives. Nor was death
always completely unexpected. In one study, about half the murder victims in a
particular city had called for police protection at least five times during the 24
months before they were murdered. Nonetheless, most people are more likely to
fear being killed by a stranger in an unfamiliar situation than by a friend or
relative at home.
Which of the following, if true, best explains the reaction of most people to the
likelihood of being murdered?
(A) Statistics are likely to be discounted no matter what the source, if their
implication seems to run counter to common sense.
(B) In the face of such upsetting problems as murder and assault, most
people are more likely to react emotionally than rationally.
(C) A study taken in only one city is not likely to have an effect on attitudes
until similar studies have been undertaken at the national level and yielded
similar results.
(D) Most people do not consider themselves to be in the high-risk groups in
which murder occurs frequently between relations, but do see themselves as
at least minimally susceptible to random violence.
(E) People who seek police protection from relatives and friends are often
unwilling to press charges when the emotions of the moment have cooled.

The discrepancy here is that most people have a greater fear of being killed by a
total stranger even though statistics suggest that it is more likely to be killed by
someone you know. What could account for both facts? It is basically a case of
perceptions not in line with reality. As Choice (D) points out, nobody likes to
think of himself as being at risk of murder by friends or family, no matter what
the statistics might say. (D) makes it not only possible, but also quite logical that
both the murder statistics, and the statistics on people's fears, are simultaneously
true.

Let's move to our final Logical Reasoning question type.

Point at Issue Questions

This is a relatively rare question and usually appears only once per Logical
Reasoning section. The stimulus is a dialogue between two individuals, and the
stem asks the question "what are the two people arguing about?"
This question tests our ability to find the topic and scope of both arguments and
disregard any tangential information: the filler. Concentrating on the topic and
scope will allow you to more readily see the issue in contention. The right
answer will be a statement within the scope of both arguments, as well as
something on which the arguments disagree.
Point at Issue questions require the test taker to identify the axis on which the
debate turns. The question rewards the critical reader, who can find the scope of
each argument and ignore issues not contested by both parties, in order to focus
on the nexus of the dispute.
Try this example.
Point at Issue, continued
Try to identify the point at issue in the following argument. Click
Continue to compare your answer to ours.
Dan: Our heavy reliance on imported oil allows other nations to use this
situation for political gain. Therefore, we should immediately begin drilling to
find any oil reserves.
John: It is true that our country is heavily reliant on foreign oil. However,
finding new oil reserves is not the solution. The money spent on drilling would
be better spent on finding alternative power sources.

The scope of Dan's argument is: we need to drill for more oil to solve our
reliance on imported oil. The scope of John's argument is: we need to find
alternative power sources to solve the reliance on foreign oil. What is the point
at issue? They disagree on what means their country should employ to reduce
the reliance on foreign oil. See how that works?
Let's try an in-format question.
Managing Point at Issue Questions

What you will see in Point at Issue questions are question stems like these:
Based on their positions stated above, the two speakers are committed to
disagree about which of the following?
The issue that Scott raises in objecting to Ray's argument is
You should then think: "A disagreement. I need to locate the basis of the
conflicting opinions."
Next, what you should do is find the scope of each argument and try to
determine the point the authors disagree. Evaluate the choices asking yourself:
"Do both speaker 1 and speaker 2 have an opinion about this? If so, do these
opinions differ?
Pont at Issue: An Example
Try this sample question. Click the circle by the correct answer choice,
and then click Continue. Remember to use the Kaplan Method for
Logical Reasoning.
Consumer Activist: Airbags in cars have proven themselves to be hazardous
devices. They result in several different types of injuries, including burns,
fractures, and inhalation of toxic gasses. As a result, cars should no longer be
equipped with airbags.
Manufacturer: It is true that airbags can sometimes cause minor injuries,
especially when they are used incorrectly. However, the injuries that they
preclude can be far more devastating than the ones they cause.
The statements of the Consumer Activist and the Manufacturer indicate that
they disagree about which of the following?
(A) Airbags can cause injuries such as burns, fractures, and inhalation of
toxic gasses.
(B) Airbags are the best way of protecting passengers in automobile crashes.
(C) Incorrect use is the cause of most airbag-related injuries.
(D) If passengers in automobiles wore seatbelts, airbags would not be
necessary.
(E) Cars should no longer be equipped with airbags.

The Consumer Activist says that cars should no longer be equipped with airbags.
To support this conclusion, he brings in evidence about the injuries they cause.
The Manufacturer responds by saying that the injuries the airbags cause are far
less severe than those they prevent. That being the case, his stance would be that

autos SHOULD still be equipped with airbags. That makes (E) the correct
answer.
Both parties actually agree about answer choice (A). The Manufacturer does not
deny that the airbags can cause injuries; he only says that the injuries they
prevent are even worse.
As far as choices (B), (C), and (D) go, they are all outside the scope. Neither of
the parties ever says that airbags are the best (or worst) means of protecting
passengers. The manufacturer mentions the incorrect use of airbags, but he never
says it is the cause of most airbag-related injuries, and the Activist does not
mention improper use at all. Finally, neither party at any time ever mentions
seatbelts in any capacity. See how reading critically, in particular in this type of
question, can eliminate many outside the scope answer choices?
Review the Topics
In this lesson we went through four common wrong answers:
Outside the Scope - Choices that touch upon issues related to the topic of the
argument, but that are not within the scope of the argument.
Extreme Answers - They contain extreme words such as: every, all, always,
never, etc. The vast majority of extreme choices are incorrect.
180's - Choices that describe the exact opposite of what the question is asking
for, or what the author believes.
Irrelevant Comparisons - It is a choice that tempts the unwary test taker with
an insignificant distinction.
We also cover six question types:
Main Point questions - In this question you are specifically looking for the
author's conclusion. The point the stimulus is driving towards.
Parallel Reasoning questions - You are looking for parallel arguments. The two
arguments that use the same kind of evidence to draw the same kind of
conclusion.
Method of Argument questions - This question requires the test takers to
demonstrate an understanding of the how an argument is built. It rewards people
who can look beneath the specifics of an argument's content, to its underlying
structure.
Principle questions - Principle questions involve fitting a specific situation into
a global generality (or, occasionally, vice versa).
Paradox questions - This question asks you to find the answer choice that

"explains the surprising result" the paradox.

Point at Issue questions - Point at Issue questions require the test taker to
identify the axis on which the debate turns. The question rewards the critical
reader, who can find the scope of each argument and ignore issues not contested
by both parties, in order to focus on the nexus of the dispute.
Reasoning Challenge Workshop: Next Steps
Once you feel comfortable with the concepts in this lesson, take the Logical
Reasoning Challenge Workshop Quiz. This will give you a chance to practice
what you have learned and will give you feedback after you are done. If you
need an additional review at any time, return to this workshop.
At this point, you should have a good grasp of the concepts and questions tested
in the Logical Reasoning sections. Make sure to go through the individual
question type workshops to further your understanding of Reasoning questions.
Good luck with your reasoning practice, and on Test Day!