Assumptions and Flaws: Focus on the Argument Engine
Do you struggle with assumption and flaw questions? Do you often choose answers that seem right, or relevant, but end up being wrong? This may help.
Consider the following argument:
Many respected entrepreneurs assert that insufficient capital, capital required to cover operating expenses in addition to initial start-up costs, is inevitably a factor in the failure of start-up businesses. However, all of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
If this were followed by a question that asked you to choose an assumption, this would be a pretty tough question. The average test-taker attempts to memorize, or “learn” the entire argument, and then gets distracted by answer choices that seem relevant to some particular part of the argument that ends up not mattering so much. This leads to wrong answers.
The strong test-taker has a clearer sense for what we’ll call “the argument engine,” and knows that everything else will likely just provide a context for that engine. The correct answer will usually relate or connect the two parts of the engine. The incorrect answers will generally sit outside the engine – irrelevant. So, what’s this engine thing all about?
Let’s turn this argument on its head and start over.
We spend a lot of time deconstructing arguments. Let’s try looking at things in reverse order. Let’s actually construct this argument from the ground up. We’ll start with the conclusion:
Insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
Now, let’s add a premise to support this conclusion:
All of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
To make this argument more LSAT-like, we’ll add an opposing point to the beginning:
Many respected entrepreneurs assert that insufficient capital is inevitably a factor in the failure of start-up businesses. However, all of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
Let’s put in some background information, just to add some more language:
Many respected entrepreneurs assert that insufficient capital, capital required to cover operating expenses in addition to initial start-up costs, is inevitably a factor in the failure of start-up businesses. However, all of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
Now we have a full argument. Notice that the more we add the more confusing things become. The more words we read, the less we’re able to focus on the things that really matter.
To fight through the confusion, try thinking of the LSAT argument as a car. The engine is the most important part of the car; it makes the car go. The chassis of the car simply provides a frame, or a context, for the engine.
Likewise, the most important part of an LSAT argument, the engine of the argument, is the simple relationship between one supporting premise and one final conclusion: P à C. Everything else, opposing point and background information, simply provides a frame or a context for this simple relationship.
Let’s go back to the example we introduced above. Before we added the opposing point and the background information things were pretty simple, right? We had one simple premise leading to one conclusion:
All of the failed start-ups with which I’ve been involved have failed as a result of executives’ lack of expertise in the product or service that the company provides. Thus, insufficient capital is not a factor in causing start-up businesses to fail.
This is the engine of the argument! We can paraphrase it:
start-ups I’ve seen failed b/c of lack of expertise –> thus, lack of capital not a cause of failure
When we see the engine, or core, of the argument in simple terms, any flaws, gaps, or assumptions become more obvious. In this case, the author assumes that there cannot be more than one reason why a start-up fails.
If you have trouble with assumptions and flaws, try focusing on the engine. Try constructing the argument from the ground up: find the conclusion, find the one premise that directly supports this conclusion, and then recognize that everything else just provides a context for this engine that you’ve just identified.
Once you have your engine, you’ve defined the scope of the argument. The correct answer will generally fall within the scope of the engine.
(ADVANCED NOTE: Sometimes more difficult questions involve a three-part engine: premise –> intermediate conclusion –> conclusion. In a case such as this, you’ll need to examine the logic in two parts. First, look at the premise –> intermediate conclusion relationship. Is there a gap or assumption made in this part of the engine? Next, look at the intermediate conclusion –> conclusion part of the engine and ask yourself the same question. The simple difference here is that there are actually TWO engines at work. You’ll want to check both of them.)