LOGICAL REASONING: Want a Categorical ‘Rule’? Here is as Close as You’re Going to Get.
Shortcuts are few and far between on the LSAT
LSAT students in our courses often come in asking for “rules” or “shortcuts” that will enable them to learn the “tricks” of the test. We don’t really do teach “tricks and gimmicks” at Manhattan LSAT, and I try to convey early on that this way of thinking about the test isn’t all that useful. The LSAT is teachable, but it’s teachable in a way that doesn’t involve foolproof rules that serve as substitutes for thinking, like “whenever you see the word ‘all,’ the answer is wrong,” or “a conclusion with the word ‘should’ will never be correct to this kind of question.”
Beware of people who give you categorical rules like these. Or at least beware of the rules (the people probably don’t bite). When it comes to the LSAT, rarely is there going to be an absolute rule that you can apply mechanically and still be 100% confident in its application.
That said, if you were to come across a flaw question, say on preptest 42, section 2, around question 15, and there were an answer choice that read, “contains a premise that cannot possibly be true,” and you were skeptical because you thought, “Wait, I don’t think we analyze the validity of premises on their own–we analyze the reasoning between them and the conclusion… so can an answer choice like this ever be right?” you’d be on to something.
Flaws in logical reasoning are reasoning flaws; they aren’t flaws in the plausibility of a standalone premise. So I feel confident saying it: don’t choose this answer to a flaw question. But I’m going to add this caveat: still think as you do it. If you find one I’m wrong about, let me know. I’ll buy you a beer.