Main Point
“Expresses the main conclusion”
Look for C and P indicators
What does the author want me to believe?
Why should I believe this?
Conclusion…BC…Premise
Most Strongly Supported
“Most Strongly Supported” “Supported”
Answer will be the conclusion
Find support in the stimulus
Do not use any outside knowledge
Must Be True
“Follows logically” “Properly inferred”
If we know the stimulus is true, then we know that [ANSWER] must be true
They give you P, you’re looking for C
Find support in the stimulus
Use valid argument forms & lawgic
Sufficient Assumption
"Which of following is assumed” “Follows logically if valid”
Look missing piece to make argument perfect
If X true, then C true
Connects bridge between P and C
Pseudo Sufficient Assumption
“Helps to justify the reasoning in the argument”
Similar to SA questions but it doesnt have to be 100% valid
Identify P and C and assumption
Find answer that connects P and C
If X true, then C true
Strengthen
“Strengthen” “Adds the most support”
Strengthen the relationship between P and C
What would make C more true?
What info makes P more relevant to C?
Weaken
“Weaken”
Weaken relationship between P and C
Find and destroy the assumption
Find answer that could lead to diff C
What would make C less true?
Argument Part
“Plays which one of the following roles”
Label: Conclusion, Premise, Context, Sub Conclusion, Opposing Arg, Viewpoints
What does the sentence do for the argument? What is its relationship to the conclusion?
Method of Reasoning
“Strategy of argumentation”
You are describing the entire argument structure
Find the answer that describes the reasoning used
Ask does the argument do this?
Parallel Method of Reasoning
“Match the argument structure”
Heavy use of Lawgic
Lawgical indicators!! If no conditional statements, use intuition
Match every part of the argument
Conclusions must match!!!
Principle
“Which principle, Reverse SA questions”
They give you P → C, you find P and C
Either A → B or /B → /A
Cs must match to be correct
They give you example or rule and you find the other piece
Flaw
“Most vulnerable to criticism” “Flawed”
Similar to weakening - Point out what is wrong w/ arg
Similar to MoR - Flaw in form, structure of arg is wrong
Two part test for Flaws
1) Is it descriptively accurate?
2) Does it describe the flaw?
Parallel Flaw
“Flawed reasoning”
Find the flaw in the stimulus
The flaw should match, but the structure of the argument should also match
The conclusions MUST match
Use Lawgic here to ensure match
Necessary Assumption
“Assumption relies, depends on”
Negate all answer choices
Which AC when negated, destroys the argument?
If C true, what MBT
Resolve Reconcile Explain
“RRE the apparent discrepancy”
Stimulus will appear like contradiction
What is the paradox here?
What answer choice explains this paradox?
Point at Issue: Disagree
“Disagree about which of following”
Read their arguments and pinpoint what they are disagreeing about
Go through the answer choices, apply each to each statement, do they argue this?
If no opinion, eliminate.