﻿

# The PowerScore LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible by David M. Killoran

Author:David M. Killoran
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: powerscore, LSAT, logical reasoning
Publisher: PowerScore Publishing
Published: 2018-03-16T14:56:51+00:00

This relationship is similar to the following:

In this case, a few additional elements have been added to B in the conclusion, but we can add these elements to A and make the problem work. The term that would justify the conclusion in this problem is:

many Justifiably RegrettedForgone

A comparison of this term and answer choice (D) reveals that the two are identical. If you are still uncertain, use the Justify Formula to eliminate each of the remaining answer choices.

In reviewing Justify the Conclusion questions, you must recognize that each of the strategies described in this section are complementary. The approaches work because they all revolve around the undeniable truth of these questions: your answer, when combined with the premises, must justify the conclusion. Whether you see the conditional or numerical basis for the question or use the mechanistic approach is unimportant. The important part is that you quickly determine which answer has the components sufficient to prove the conclusion.

Test Maker Tricks: Justify the Conclusion Questions

The PowerScore Mechanistic Approach has proven so effective that in recent years the test makers have tried to create questions that evade a simple application of the technique. These questions can still be solved by applying the Mechanistic approach (primarily because the theory that underlies that approach is the same theory that is used in the formation of the questions), but it helps if you understand the tricks the test makers are using. There are two primary avenues of deception:

1. Rewording Elements

In most Justify questions, elements are stated in nearly identical terms throughout the argument and the answers. For example, in the previous question in this chapter, the “should not have desired in the first place” element was worded identically in both places it appeared in the argument. This similarity makes it easier to identify and connect elements. Not surprisingly, then, one tool the test makers use is to describe an element in one way when it first appears, and another when it reappears. Here are several examples: