Logical Reasoning · Method of Argument

PrepTest 103 · Section 3 · Question 2

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Method of Argument

The one idea it tests

The arguer knocks down someone else's explanation by pointing to a fact that cannot sit comfortably next to it: a counterexample.

The basic logic

Find the opposed claim, then find the evidence used against it. Ask: does the evidence clash with the claim? If the claim says a cause makes something impossible, and the evidence shows it happening anyway, that is a clash.

Tiny words that decide it

“some people claim”
“but”
“cannot be”
“because”

Playground logic

Kevin claims the noisy cafeteria made spelling impossible. Lulu points out she took the same quiz in the same noise and got a perfect score. Her move: bring in a fact that clashes with Kevin's claim.

Step 2 · The kid story

Kevin and the Loud Lunch Quiz

Ms. Rivera gave a surprise spelling quiz during indoor lunch. The cafeteria was LOUD. Kevin got four out of ten. "The noise made it impossible to spell," he announced, waving a slice of pineapple pizza. "Nobody could think in there. Not even a T. rex." Lulu raised her hand. "I took the same quiz in the same cafeteria at the same table," she said, "and I got ten out of ten." Kevin blinked. Lulu didn't offer a new reason for Kevin's score. She didn't argue about what "impossible" means. She simply laid a fact on the table that doesn't fit Kevin's story. If the noise made spelling impossible, Lulu's perfect paper couldn't exist. But there it was, with a gold star on it.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Kevin says the cafeteria noise made it impossible for anyone to spell well on the quiz. But Kevin must be wrong, because Lulu took the same quiz in the same noisy cafeteria and got a perfect score.

Lulu's reply does which one of the following?

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Bakery and the Broken Oven

Ms. Dalton, the baker's lawyer, stood up. "My client's bread failed because the summer heat makes rising dough impossible in this town." Mr. Whitfield rose slowly. "Your Honor, I have one exhibit." He set down a warm loaf. "This was baked last week, three doors down, in the same heat, by the shop across the street. It rose beautifully." The courtroom murmured. Mr. Whitfield did not argue about the weather. He did not offer his own theory. He just showed a fact that the other side's claim says should not exist. "If the heat made rising impossible," he said, "this loaf would be a pancake." The judge took a bite and nodded.

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 103, Section 3, Question 2 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Locate the explanation the arguer rejects and the reason given for rejecting it. Ask what kind of reason it is: a new theory, a rule, a definition, or a single fact that clashes with the opposed claim. Then match that move to the abstract description in the choices. Cross out any choice that describes a step the argument never takes, even if it sounds like something a good arguer would do.