LSAT BOSS with Shana Ginsburg, Esq.

Inference questions ask you to analyze the logical reasoning of an argument and determine what other information necessarily follows from it. To determine what necessarily follows, or flows, from the argument, you’ll need to learn formal logical reasoning inference rules. These rules are the backbone of an argument, and understanding them can refine your approach to question types we learned in earlier lessons.

Inference: A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

Note how similar the definition of an inference is the definition of a conclusion:

Conclusion: A statement that necessarily follows from the stated and unstated premises.

Notice how a conclusion flows from the premises—or evidence—but an inference flows from evidence AND reasoning. So what does it mean to flow from reasoning? Let’s learn some formal logic:

Modus Ponens: a deductive reasoning inference rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

Example: If I sit hunched over my desk, I will likely end up with back pain. I sat hunched over my desk for five hours. So, I may end up with back pain.

Symbolization:

P → Q

P

---------

Q

Modus Tollens: the inference rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the consequent does not hold ( not-q or ~q ), then the negation of the antecedent ( not-p or ~q) can be inferred.

Example: If I sit hunched over my desk, I will likely end up with back pain. I did not end up with back pain today. So I must have not sat hunched over my desk.

Symbolization:

P → Q

~Q

----------

~P

Modus Tollendo Ponens (aka disjunction syllogism): A valid form of argument in which the antecedent (p) of a conditional proposition (Either p or q) is negated (~p), thereby entailing the affirmation of the consequent (q).

Example: Either I am going to watch Bordertown on Netflix, or I’m going to watch The Good Fight because my eyes are too tired to handle the subtitles. My eyes are too tired for the subtitles in Bordertown, therefore, I’m going to watch The Good Fight.

Symbolization:

P v Q

~P

______

Q

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout.

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at [email protected].

Like what you hear? Leave us a review!

In today's episode, Shana and Trudel unpack weakening questions, and bust myths about why 'liking' an answer is never a good reason to select it, and why a 'blind review' is not a learning strategy and something to be used with caution. 

We'll consider weakening questions through the same lens as strengthening: Consider the case of a woman who sues a school system because she is rear-ended by a school bus on her way to work. After the accident, the woman has a back surgery totaling $200,000.00, so she sues the school system for damages. The underlying assumption of her argument is: “Because I was rear-ended by the school bus, I needed a $200,000.00 back surgery.” As her attorney, your job would be to prove that, more likely than not, the accident was the only cause of the surgery. You would have to strengthen the underlying assumption, and eliminate any other cause for the surgery.

However, as an attorney for the school system, your job would be to prove that something other than the accident cause the need for the back surgery. If you can prove that the back surgery was scheduled before the accident, that would weaken the assumption. 

We'll also tackle the following question along the way:

Harriet, a Kindergartener, was once given a bin of toys by her school teacher after the

more assertive children had wandered off. In her delight, she let out a series of loud

squeals. The other children returned and took the toys away. The next day, Harriet was

again alone and was given a single toy. This time, however, she didn’t make a sound.

Her teacher concluded that Harriet’s silence was a strategy to keep the other children

from her toys.

Which one of the following, if true, most accurately weakens Harriet’s teacher’s

conclusion?

(A) Children make delighted squeals only when their favorite items are available.

(B) Children make delighted squeals only when they encounter a sizable variety of

toys.

(C) Children frequently take items from other children merely to assert dominance.

(D) Even when they are alone, children often make noises that appear to be signals

to other children.

(E) Toys are a type of item for which all children in Harriet’s class show a decided

preference.

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.  

Podcast listeners take 30% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code SALE30 at checkout.

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at [email protected].  

Like what you hear? Leave us a review! 

I love this Admissions Love Story, because it's the gift that keeps on giving. Ali and Claudia first met at the beginning of their pre-law journey in 2018. Fast forward to September 2020, and Ali has generated a 21-point LSAT score improvement -- but equally amazing-- a 1.0 UGPA increase.  While he waits for his acceptance letters to roll in, we recorded an interview about his journey and caught up with Claudia Ryan, who, at the time, was preparing for her Criminal Law midterm exam.  

A month later, we now bring you this episode with exciting news: Claudia  received the highest grade in the class!

Ready to begin your pre-law journey? Learn about our test prep, admissions, and accommodations services at our website GinsburgAdvancedTutoring.com. 

Find LSAT Boss: The Class hosted by Shana Ginsburg on Teachable.  Begin your LSAT journey with a rigorous, curriculum-based course designed for the anything-but-average student. LSAT Boss podcast listeners enjoy 30% off at checkout with code SALE30.

Music by former student Taha Ahmed.

You may know her as the Season 1 cohost of the LSAT Boss podcast, but back in 2019, Claudia was a pre-law student working with Ginsburg Admissions to prepare her personal statement and ensure that she was applying to the schools that were the best fit for her.  Baltimore ended up accepting Claudia with a sizable scholarship, and it turns out to be an even more perfect fit than she had expected.  It's not too easy. It's not too hard. To Claudia, it's the Goldilocks of law schools. And she's here to tell you why.

Start your law school journey today. Visit us on the web at GinsburgAdvancedTutoring.com or head to Ginsburg.Advanced.Tutoring-teachable.com to begin your online LSAT Boss Course with Shana Ginsburg.  

Music by Ginsburg alum Taha Ahmed. 

Season 2 of LSAT Boss picks up where we left off, only without Claudia Ryan who is on hiatus while she begins law school. Our new guest cohost is Trudel Pare, who will be helping us break down the rest of the logical reasoning lessons. Trudel, a Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring graduate, scored a 177 on the July LSAT and shares her wisdom on mastering the content, test strategies, and mental clarity techniques on her road to a near-perfect score. 

This lesson is devoted to the assumption, and how to create the causal argument assumption—the assumption that connects the causal premises of an argument to its overall conclusion.

Assumption Definition:  An unstated premise that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

The Assumption Strategy:

1. Identify the Conclusion

2. Identify the Premises

3. Prephrase the Causal Assumption (Every assumption can be prephrased by taking the conclusion and connecting it back to the premise. There are five ways you can make these connections in a prephrase of the assumption. We'll take a look.)

4. Apply Process of Elimination Tests

The 4-part assumption strategy contains two steps you already know how to do- identify the conclusion, and identify the premise. The next steps are explained in this lesson.

Our complete LSAT Boss curriculum is now available on teachable. Find us on the web and begin your 33-video curriculum, with guided lessons and homework drills in official LSAT Preptests:  ginsburg-advanced-tutoring.teachable.com. 

Episode 13: Principles.

Consider the principle like a moral in an Aesop’s Fable. For example, in the fable “The Tortoise and the Hare,” the lesson learned by the animals—the moral of the story—is that “Slow and steady wins the race.” That moral is the principle! Let’s not confuse it with the conclusion of the fable, which was simply that the tortoise won the race.

To get more technical, a principle is like a law, and laws have elements. In other words, to support a conviction of first degree murder, the prosecution must establish that the individual acted 1) intentionally, 2) with malice, that his act was 3) premeditated, and that it 4) cause the killing of another. If the prosecution can’t prove all of those elements apply to the case against a person, then the principle would not justify the application of a murder conviction in this case. For example, if a woman is charged with killing her husband, but his body isn’t ever found, is that 4th element above actually proven? Or, if a man asks his wife to shoot him while he holds a book in front of his heart so that he can test the theory that a book can stop a bullet, is there evidence that she did so with malice?

So, as we look at principles, we’ll be looking at all of the components of the principle and checking one component at a time to see if it applies to a particular scenario, or can be used to justify a conclusion, or can apply to a similar principle with a different fact pattern.

Three Types of Principle Questions

Select the Principle from the Answer Choices

● Which one of the following principles, if valid, helps to justify the author’s reasoning?

● Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the conclusion above?

● Which one of the following principles underlies the author’s argument?

Select the Justification from the Answer Choices

● Which of the following, if true, most justifies the above application of the principle?

Apply the Principle to Another Situation

● The principles stated by the author