Types of Logical Reasoning Questions Identifying the Issue 1) Inference o In the Stimulus...

A Facts/Principles/Mechanism is provided, but a conclusion is rarely given o Identifying the Correct Answer... 2 types: 1) Identify a conclusion which follows from the facts The answer does not contradict any of the facts. Is the conclusion which can be drawn from the facts given with the greatest strength. The facts are therefore transformed into evidence using reasoning (supplied by you) that cannot be flawed. 2) Identify a fact that does not contradict the facts given. Sufficient Necessary Logic is Required Here. 2) Explain a Contradiction o In the Stimulus... Two contradictory fact patterns are given and a often there is a single conclusion o Identifying the Correct Answer... Does not contradict any of the fact patterns nor any conclusion. You must identify the contradiction and the answer must address it. 3) Support or Weaken an Argument o In the Stimulus... A full argument will be provided o Identifying the Correct Answer... You are being asked to support/weaken a conclusion, facts and evidence will be given, reasoning may not be implied and should be identified before proceeding. There are three ways to support a conclusion (in order of importance): 1) Verify the reasoning which would connect evidence to facts Close off a potential flaw 2) Support evidence on which the conclusions is based 3) Add additional evidence which helps the conclusion to be drawn. A good example is 7/1/23 o Three ways to weaken a conclusion (in order of importance): 1) 1) Expose a flaw in the reasoning. 2) 2) Challenge the evidence on which the conclusion is based. 3) 3) Introduce additional evidence which contradict the conclusion 4) Identify a Flaw o In the Stimulus... A full argument will be provided. Reasoning may be explicit but is often implied and must be identified before proceeding. o Identifying the Correct Answer... Flaws are gaps in the reasoning: a mistake in the link between the evidence and the conclusion Flaws are different from omissions in logic (see assumption questions): the reasoning in a flaw is simply wrong and cannot be corrected the addition of other conditions.

The answer will not attack the evidence, but will point to the logic employed: how is the evidence incorrectly connected to the conclusion. With formal logic, the flaw is easier to identify With informal logic, try to think of a situation where the conclusion does not apply. Common flaws. Also, if the evidence is uncertain and limited in scope but the conclusion is decisive and wide in scope, eyebrows should be raised. The test is: Does this answer stop the conclusion from being properly drawn? Identify the Conclusion o In the Stimulus... A full argument will usually be provided. o Identifying the Correct Answer... All of the evidence will point toward the conclusion. Conclusions are the point that the author is arguing for; For example, a principle could function as both evidence or a conclusion. 5) Identify required assumptions o In the Stimulus... A full argument will be provided. There are two 2 types of this kind of question: 1) Fill in the blanks: The conclusion will fail to link the evidence to the conclusion. Often a mechanism will be given, but not all of the parts will be mentioned by the conclusion Eg) 60/1/7 2) What if...: The conclusion will not be outright incorrect, but incomplete. The Conclusion will often be wider in scope, or more decisive than the evidence would allow. Eliminating Alternatives: It helps to find a situation where the conclusion may not apply. The conclusion therefore cannot be drawn conclusively unless an assumption which covers that situation is made. Very often has to do with eliminating confounding or intervening variables Eg) 60/3//3 o The Negation Technique of answer will help eliminate the answer choice since the assumption is REQUIRED for the conclusion to be drawn conclusively. 8) Parallel Reasoning In the Stimulus... A conclusion and evidence will be given; often the reasoning will be stated explicit\ Identifying the Correct Answer... Tips: 1. Valid/Invalid if the stimulus conclusion is valid (no flaws), then any answers which with invalid conclusions can be eliminated 2. Parallel Scope if the stimulus conclusion is a general principle, the answers conclusion will also be a general principle; if the stimulus

evidence is an example, the answers evidence will also be an example 9) Disagree Over In the Stimulus... i. Two conclusions will be given (recall conclusions can be recommendations, explanations, etc.) are given by two speakers. Identifying the Correct Answer... i. Identify the two conclusions. These conclusions will take opposing sides to the some issue. ii. That issue will therefore be addressed by both conclusions