Find the missing connection: an argument workshop · LSAT Reasoning

How to use this workshop

Work one case at a time before reading its explanation. First identify what is granted, then state exactly what the advocate wants you to accept. A conclusion question asks for an argumentative role; a flaw question asks whether the connection succeeds; a weakening question asks how new information changes its support. These are related but different tasks. Your answer to one should not become a shortcut around reading the next question. Keep the premises fixed when evaluating a proposed new finding, and watch for choices that merely restate the conclusion.

Museum Eligibility

Every museum employee who handles original manuscripts must complete preservation training. Dana completed preservation training. The advocate infers: Dana handles original manuscripts.

The point to examine is the connection, not whether the topic sounds familiar. It confuses a necessary condition for manuscript handling with a sufficient condition.

Contrast the effects of two possible findings. The museum trains all volunteers and employees, including people who never handle manuscripts. This challenges the stated inference. By contrast, Dana is assigned to a team whose every member handles original manuscripts. This would support the conclusion or address the gap. Neither finding should be silently treated as one of the original premises.

Now close the explanation and describe the reasoning in a different context. Preserve the same distinction rather than copying a key phrase. If the original claim says must or entirely, ask whether the evidence supports that strength. A limited challenge need not show that every part of a proposal is false.

Orchard Permit

If an orchard ships fruit overseas, it must hold an export permit. Hill Orchard does not ship fruit overseas. The advocate infers: Hill Orchard does not hold an export permit.

The point to examine is the connection, not whether the topic sounds familiar. It infers the absence of a necessary condition from the absence of the condition that requires it.

Contrast the effects of two possible findings. Hill Orchard obtained an export permit for a planned shipment that was later cancelled. This challenges the stated inference. By contrast, A licensing record confirms that Hill Orchard never applied for a permit. This would support the conclusion or address the gap. Neither finding should be silently treated as one of the original premises.

Now close the explanation and describe the reasoning in a different context. Preserve the same distinction rather than copying a key phrase. If the original claim says must or entirely, ask whether the evidence supports that strength. A limited challenge need not show that every part of a proposal is false.

Retail Mean

Average annual pay at a shop rose after a highly paid manager joined. The shop kept the same number of hourly employees. The advocate infers: The hourly employees must now earn more than before.

The point to examine is the connection, not whether the topic sounds familiar. It infers a change for a subgroup from a change in the overall average.

Contrast the effects of two possible findings. The hourly employees kept their old wages while the new manager raised the overall average. This challenges the stated inference. By contrast, Payroll records show that every hourly employee received a raise. This would support the conclusion or address the gap. Neither finding should be silently treated as one of the original premises.

Now close the explanation and describe the reasoning in a different context. Preserve the same distinction rather than copying a key phrase. If the original claim says must or entirely, ask whether the evidence supports that strength. A limited challenge need not show that every part of a proposal is false.

Clinic Share

The region had fewer flu patients this winter than last winter. The clinic's share of the region's flu patients nevertheless increased. The advocate infers: The clinic treated more flu patients this winter.

The point to examine is the connection, not whether the topic sounds familiar. It treats an increased share of a changing total as an increase in the absolute count.

Contrast the effects of two possible findings. The regional total fell by half, so a smaller clinic count represented a larger share. This challenges the stated inference. By contrast, The clinic's patient register independently records a higher flu count this winter. This would support the conclusion or address the gap. Neither finding should be silently treated as one of the original premises.

Now close the explanation and describe the reasoning in a different context. Preserve the same distinction rather than copying a key phrase. If the original claim says must or entirely, ask whether the evidence supports that strength. A limited challenge need not show that every part of a proposal is false.

Alarm Necessary

An active alarm is required for the laboratory to satisfy its security policy. The laboratory activated its alarm yesterday. The advocate infers: The laboratory now satisfies every part of the security policy.

The point to examine is the connection, not whether the topic sounds familiar. It treats one necessary requirement as sufficient for satisfying an entire policy.

Contrast the effects of two possible findings. The policy also requires a locked chemical store, and that store is unlocked. This challenges the stated inference. By contrast, An audit confirms that the alarm was the laboratory's only unmet requirement. This would support the conclusion or address the gap. Neither finding should be silently treated as one of the original premises.

Now close the explanation and describe the reasoning in a different context. Preserve the same distinction rather than copying a key phrase. If the original claim says must or entirely, ask whether the evidence supports that strength. A limited challenge need not show that every part of a proposal is false.

School Percentage

School A has a higher percentage of scholarship students than School B. School B has ten times as many students as School A. The advocate infers: School A has more scholarship students than School B.

The point to examine is the connection, not whether the topic sounds familiar. It compares percentages without accounting for the very different enrollment totals.

Contrast the effects of two possible findings. A has 30 scholarship students out of 100, while B has 100 out of 1,000. This challenges the stated inference. By contrast, An audited count shows that A has 150 scholarship students and B has 100. This would support the conclusion or address the gap. Neither finding should be silently treated as one of the original premises.

Now close the explanation and describe the reasoning in a different context. Preserve the same distinction rather than copying a key phrase. If the original claim says must or entirely, ask whether the evidence supports that strength. A limited challenge need not show that every part of a proposal is false.

City Level Error

Cities with more public parks have lower average stress scores. The comparison uses city-level averages rather than individual records. The advocate infers: Individuals who visit parks more often must have lower stress than individuals who visit them less often.

The point to examine is the connection, not whether the topic sounds familiar. It infers an individual-level relationship from aggregate comparisons alone.

Contrast the effects of two possible findings. Within every studied city, individual park visits are unrelated to individual stress. This challenges the stated inference. By contrast, An individual longitudinal study finds lower stress after otherwise comparable residents increase park visits. This would support the conclusion or address the gap. Neither finding should be silently treated as one of the original premises.

Now close the explanation and describe the reasoning in a different context. Preserve the same distinction rather than copying a key phrase. If the original claim says must or entirely, ask whether the evidence supports that strength. A limited challenge need not show that every part of a proposal is false.