There are certain LSAT keywords that people learn while prepping for the test, which tend to fall into a few categories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You probably need to spend some time solidifying the Conditional Logic words. You probably have a pretty solid handle on the argument structure words. And the question stem keywords have to be learned, but they\u2019re relatively straightforward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, there\u2019s a completely different set of \u201cLSAT keywords\u201d that don\u2019t tend to be focused on nearly as much.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These \u201cLSAT keywords\u201d (or, really, key concepts)<\/strong> will help you quickly identify the key concepts in a Logical Reasoning question<\/strong>. Most are related to the classic flaws that show up again and again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each of the concepts below commonly feature in Logical Reasoning questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whenever a study is done, check to make sure the sample is large, representative, randomly-selected or split, and has no reason to lie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most difficult concept in there, and the one that asks for an explanation, is the randomly-selected\/split. When a group is split into two segments in a study, make sure that the two groups are split randomly. If the argument doesn\u2019t specifically tell you this, there\u2019s a chance that the two groups were split in an unrepresentative manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Premises that include language such as associated with<\/em>, tends to<\/em>, correlated with<\/em>, also<\/em>\/and<\/em>. Conclusions with language such as causes<\/em>, factor<\/em>, makes<\/em>, results in<\/em>, increases<\/em>\/decreases<\/em>. These are the hallmarks of a correlation\/causation flaw.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most comparisons on the LSAT are incomplete. In order to make a valid comparison, the criteria over which the comparison would be made needs to be established, and those criteria have to be stated for both of the things being compared. Any comparison needs these parts, so when you see a comparison on the LSAT, check to see which one is missing. Usually, the pros\/cons of both sides won\u2019t be fully explored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n See Conditional Logic? The LSAT\u2019s probably testing your skills in that area. Practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the real world, people commonly use logical force to make their argument sound stronger, even when the statements aren\u2019t true. Think of the number of times you\u2019ve said, \u201cThat\u2019s the best movie ever!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the LSAT, they like to see if you can break out of this colloquial mold and notice that extreme language is almost always unwarranted. If you see cannot\/always\/impossible\/all in a conclusion, the argument\u2019s probably jumping too far from weaker premises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the conclusion features a recommendation, check to see if the criteria for determining the optimal outcome has been established and if all possible solutions have been explored. If either of those is missing, then the recommendation is flawed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just because someone believes something doesn\u2019t make it true. Just because something\u2019s true doesn\u2019t mean everyone will believe it. And just because someone says something doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s true; it doesn\u2019t even mean they necessarily believe it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is an incomplete list, so try to find some more common concepts that repeat on the LSAT and how to work with them to get to a correct answer. Finding these patterns is something that\u2019s common between almost all top test-takers, so put yourself in that category.<\/p>\n\n\nSurvey\/Study<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Correlation\/Causation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Comparisons<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Conditional Statements<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Extreme Language<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Recommendations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Belief\/Opinion\/Statement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n